A resolution condemning the disciplinary process of now-retired Prof. Eric Cheyfitz, literatures in English, was met with criticism by faculty and administrators during a Faculty Senate meeting on Oct. 22.
The resolution, which has about 200 co-sponsors, addresses what the Faculty Senate sees as a failure to follow procedures in Cheyfitz’s case and calls for the Senate to censure Cornell’s central administration, a procedure used to express formal disapproval or condemnation. It also asks the University to “renew its commitment to protecting academic freedom, even in the face of political pressure.”
Cheyfitz faced a discrimination investigation after he allegedly asked Israeli graduate student Oren Renard to leave his spring course on Gaza, “AIIS 3500: Gaza, Indigeneity, Resistance,” last semester, claiming that he was “disruptive.” Renard filed a discrimination complaint with Cornell’s Office of Civil Rights.
The Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty ruled unanimously in favor of Cheyfitz, contradicting an earlier decision by Cornell’s Office of Civil Rights, which found him in violation of federal anti-discrimination law. However, the Faculty Senate’s decision was later overturned and reinvestigated by Provost Kavita Bala.
Cheyfitz, who was recommended two semesters of unpaid leave by Dean of Arts and Sciences Peter Loewen, chose to retire before the investigation’s conclusion, ending his disciplinary proceedings. However, the administration’s earlier decision to reopen the investigation after a final decision by the AFPSF prompted the formulation of the resolution.
Administration Criticize Resolution, Case
Administrators took the floor to respond to the allegations made in the resolution, which was introduced at the start of the meeting.
Bala said that Cheyfitz was charged with two forms of misconduct: discrimination based on nationality, which fell under University Policy 6.4, and unprofessional conduct based on bias against a student’s presumed view, which falls under section 6.6 of the Faculty Handbook. Bala said that the second charge was going to be reviewed at a faculty review panel scheduled for Nov. 3, but Cheyfitz chose to retire before the hearing could take place.
The proposed resolution criticizes the administration’s bypass of rules under University Policy 6.4, which states the dean or provost “must accept the [Faculty Senate] Committee’s findings” but may “modify the Committee’s recommended sanctions.” In reopening the case and reinvestigating, the resolution states that the Cornell administration broke these rules.
In response to these allegations, Cornell administrative officials presented a series of clarifications and criticisms both of the proposed resolution and of University Policy 6.4 itself.
Katie King, the associate vice president for the Office of Civil Rights, explained that cases under Policy 6.4 traditionally use a preponderance of evidence standard to make determinations on whether or not the policy has been violated. She claimed that using the clear and convincing evidence standard, which was the legal standard used by the AFPSF in determining Cheyfitz’s case, is not consistent with state and federal law, which uses the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Preponderance of evidence is a legal standard used mostly in civil cases, requiring the defendant to prove their claim is more likely true than not. The clear and convincing evidence standard requires a high probability that a factual contention is true, and is a higher burden of proof than preponderance of evidence. While there is no federal law that explicitly says when the preponderance standard should be used, precedent established through common law and a Supreme Court ruling, E.M.D. Sales Inc. et al. v. Carrera et al., have established that “the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was the default in American civil litigation, and it remains so today.”
Similar to King, Vice President and General Counsel Donica Varner said that the procedures used by the AFPSF, which interpreted the case as an academic freedom issue, are not appropriate for civil rights complaints.
Varner also claimed that an appeal should not allow for a new review consisting of independent fact-finding hearings by “insufficiently trained volunteers,” in reference to members of the AFPSF.
“The [AAUP] guidance provides that individuals evaluating discrimination claims must handle them consistent with how such claims are handled by courts and agencies,” Varner said. “The resolution infers that the AFPSF committee's conclusions resulted from legally sound practices. They did not.”
According to the AAUP guidelines on processing complaints of discrimination, committees investigating a case should have a member “adequately experienced” in the case being handled, and the committee should be “well briefed on the nature of such claims and how they are handled by courts and agencies.”
Varner also addressed claims that Cheyfitz was suspended and punished without due process and for political purposes. She says that Cheyfitz was never suspended, and although he was relieved of his teaching duties, he remained a full-time, paid faculty member prior to the conclusion of the investigation process when Cheyfitz retired.
While Cheyfitz was not suspended by the University prior to his hearing, Bala canceled two of the classes he was slated to teach in the Fall 2025 semester.
“The process was ongoing and only ended at the request of the faculty member. He was provided due process,” Varner said. “There should be no ideological litmus test for participation in academic offerings.”
Faculty Respond to Administrator’s Criticism
Following statements from Cornell administration, Prof. Sandra Babcock, law, and Prof. Risa Lieberwitz, industrial and labor relations, were given time to respond. Babcock requested and was given additional time to reflect the seven minutes Cornell administration officials took over their allotted 20 minutes.
Babcock said that the goal of the Faculty Senate meeting and the purpose of the resolution should not be lost under the details of the case. She asserted that the resolution was written to reflect the importance of faculty governance, due process and academic freedom, and is not meant to relitigate Cheyfitz’s case
“What this resolution is about, at its core, is adhering to policies that enshrine for each of us, for every faculty member on this campus, the right to a review of any finding that they have engaged in certain forms of misconduct … by a committee of their peers,” Babcock said.
She stated that despite concerns over University Policy 6.4 presented by University officials, the policy was formed nearly 30 years ago and, as mentioned by King, has been revised and amended since.
“There is a process that can be followed for amending University Policy 6.4. You should not be doing it on the fly,” Babcock said. “You should be following the process that is in place to do that. And if it were a problematic policy, it should have been changed a long time ago.”
In response to King’s claim that preponderance of evidence is the appropriate legal standard for dealing with Cheyfitz’s case, Lieberwitz claimed that “federal law does not require universities to use a preponderance of evidence standard in their internal proceedings,” such as Faculty Senate committee hearings on academic freedom.
She said that while federal law does require universities to take prompt action to respond to discrimination complaints, it grants universities the freedom to choose the procedures and burden of proof that they apply under Title VI. In adopting policy 6.4, which uses a clear and convincing evidence standard, Cornell has properly conformed to Title VI requirements.
Title VI is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding, which includes Cornell. According to The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s page on standards of proof and campus due process, colleges and universities are allowed the freedom of choosing between the clear and convincing standard or, at the very least, a preponderance of evidence standard when dealing with internal proceedings.
In response to Varner’s claim that the appeals process was handled by “insufficiently trained volunteers” within the AFPSF, Babcock said that two of the AFPSF’s ten faculty members are experienced civil rights lawyers.
Prof. Beth Lyon, law, has worked with migrant rights, while Prof. G.S Hans, law, has worked with speech, privacy and civil liberty policy. Lyon is a member of the New York bar. Hans is a member of the Maryland bar.
When the floor was opened for discussion, AFPSF committee member Prof. John Parker, veterinary medicine, offered neither support nor opposition towards the resolution. But rather, as one of the committee’s voting members in the Cheyfitz case, he gave insight into the proceedings.
According to Parker, the committee’s use of the clear and convincing evidence standard was “the compelling reason” why he voted in favor of Cheyfitz. Although the University had lawyers present at the hearing, the committee was not told they used the wrong legal standard until after the hearing, when they met with President Michael Kotlikoff.
“The law standard is pretty clear. It’s a preponderance of evidence,” Parker said. “And given that, I would probably have rethought my vote.”
Parker attributed the way he, and perhaps other members of the AFPSF, voted to the information they were given at the time, saying they didn’t receive all the information regarding the law.
“Perhaps the Office of Civil Rights should have come and spoken with our committee before. They were certainly invited to come and speak, but they declined to,” Parker said. “I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that our decision was made based on what we knew at the time, and it was only afterwards that we discovered that the law actually differs from the policy statement.”
Amongst others to participate in the open discussion was Prof. Yuval Grossman, physics, who was opposed to the resolution. In a brief statement, Grossman reiterated his disappointment in the “doxing” of Renard by national media, and further his disappointment with Cheyfitz’s handling of the case. However, he offered compliments towards the Cornell administration for “finally” taking action to protect Israelis on campus.
“This resolution has completely reversed the roles of the victim and the individual who should be held accountable for their actions,” Grossman said. “I really hope we all reject this resolution.”
Up to this point in the meeting, speakers were able to speak uninterrupted. However, the final speaker, Prof. Richard Bensel, government, who started to share information on Renard’s background in Israel’s military surveillance agency, Unit 8200, was shouted down by faculty in the audience shortly after he began.
Members of the audience called for Bensel to be removed, yelling that it was unfair and inappropriate of him to expose and allude to Renard’s past as part of the committee meeting. Prof. Eve De Rosa, human ecology, dean of faculty, subsequently asked for unanimous consent to remove all content about Renard’s background from the meeting, before Bensel finished his remarks.
Despite the controversy and charged arguments that concluded the Faculty Senate resolution hearing, Lieberwitz maintains that the proposed resolution isn’t and never has been about relitigating Cheyfitz’s case, and that the situation holds grave implications for the future of faculty governance.
“Simply because the administration is sorry that they adopted a policy that gives faculty these rights doesn’t mean that they can just go ‘poof, those rights don’t exist,’” Lieberwitz said. “This is about more than one person. This is about recognizing the importance of a fair process … I don't know who among our colleagues may be next to need those protections. I hope none of us will face this. But what I do know is that those procedures are essential to protect all of us from arbitrary action and overreach at any time.”
A revised resolution was posted on Oct. 28 with more signees. The resolution will move to a vote in future meetings.
Matthew Chen is a member of the Class of 2029 in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is a staff writer for the News department and can be reached at mchen@cornellsun.com.
