Cowardice And Capitulation At Cornell
from the not-the-cornell-i-remember dept
On Friday it was announced that my alma mater, Cornell, had caved to the Trump administration and agreed to a “deal” the federal government had offered them to get back the funding it had illegally cut off from Cornell as part of its authoritarian efforts to bully top universities into submission. This capitulation came just days after the American electorate showed that they were in strong agreement that the Donald Trump regime is out of control and needs to be stopped. Doing this now suggests that the administration at Cornell has no business running a top university.
BestNetTech wouldn’t exist without Cornell University. I started the seeds of what became BestNetTech directly while a student there, and much of the framework through which I view innovation and tech policy came from working with certain professors. I’m taking a moment here to explain why this matters to me personally, because the lessons I learned there make Cornell’s failure all the more painful. As a teaching assistant for both Don Greenberg (who appears to still be going at age 91!) and Alan McAdams (who passed away in 2013) I learned to think deeply about innovation, business models, and policy.
Greenberg taught me how to better understand the trajectories of technological innovation (in 1996 he tasked me with thinking through the implications of both widespread broadband adoption—at a time when most people were still on dial-up modems—as well as the impact of widespread access to digital photography). McAdams, on the other hand, introduced me to the concept of open source software, and pushed me to help him think through why open source software and universal, people-owned broadband access were both wholly compatible with (and, in fact, advantageous to) free market innovation.
McAdams also directly encouraged me to start writing about these ideas and to create a website about them, which eventually gave me the confidence to put together BestNetTech. I would sit in McAdams’ office for hours while he’d sit there, in a suit, but while wearing sneakers with the laces untied, going on and on about how too many people didn’t understand how open access and open systems were the secret weapon against tech monopolies. He would talk about how you could use the centrality of tech monopolies against them, by targeting them with open systems.
One other professor who helped shape me was Professor James Gross (who appears to have just retired a few years ago, but appears to still be writing) who taught an incredibly impactful class on “values.” I ended up taking multiple other classes with him and used to go to his office hours way too often, where he was always kind and willing to chat. One of the key lessons Gross taught me was that values aren’t relative. You can’t say “well, that’s different” as an excuse for compromising. If you were compromising your values, you didn’t really have values.
Cornell has compromised its values, proving it doesn’t have them. In their announcement regarding this capitulation, University President Michael Kotlikoff tries to argue that they didn’t really fold, and he asks that everyone read the agreement “in its entirety” before reacting.
And, it is true that the agreement is much less onerous and ridiculous than the ones signed by Columbia, UVA, and Brown (or the one proposed with Harvard). UCLA law professor Joey Fishkin notes that rather than supporting the bullshit racist anti-DEI policies that the Trump admin has demanded of other universities, Cornell only agreed that it would provide that racist nonsense “as a training resource” to faculty and staff.
Fishkin’s right that Cornell avoided the worst demands—the explicitly racist requirements that other schools accepted. But even this “lighter” version creates serious problems, because capitulation is capitulation regardless of degree. The settlement still includes terms no self-respecting university with values should agree to. It is paying the federal government $30 million for no reason at all. It also is going to hand over “anonymized” admissions data to Trump’s thugs:
Cornell shall provide the United States with anonymized undergraduate admissions data consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 100.6 and similar regulations broken down by Cornell’s individual colleges and schools, race, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests, on a quarterly basis, in a form permitting statistical analyses for each year of the Agreement. Admissions data will also be subjected to a comprehensive audit by the United States. This information will be maintained confidentially and exempt from public disclosure and subject to pre-disclosure notification and an opportunity to object to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, to the fullest extent possible by law
There’s no such thing as truly “anonymized” data at this scale—a fact multiple Cornell professors in the relevant fields could explain to the administration. The settlement language itself reveals the problem: data “broken down by Cornell’s individual colleges and schools, race, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests” creates enough granularity that re-identification becomes trivial. But the bigger issue is that this data will enable the federal government to insist that Cornell is not being racist enough, meaning that further demands, and further capitulation is to be expected.
You can see the calculation Cornell made here. There were hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money that were being illegally blocked by Trump as part of his and his minions’ bullying. So paying $30 million to get back way more seems worth it. Agreeing to hand out racist nonsense as “guidance” rather than demands, and forking over “anonymized data” feels like a small price to pay to get these goons off your back.
But that calculation is based on a false premise: that the Trump administration will now leave Cornell alone. They’ve shown no signs of actually doing that. Authoritarian regimes don’t reward capitulation with restraint—they take it as permission to demand more. And more. Beyond that, the administration itself is weak and has been losing battle after battle. And the election last week showed how incredibly unpopular they are. To cave now gives a weak administration a desperately needed win, allowing it to get back off the ground when it was down.
On top of all that, as a university that claims to have values that it seeks to instill in its students, capitulating to such obviously bullshit bullying wipes out any belief that the University stands for anything real at all.
Finally, as Fishkin also notes, the lighter weight details of this agreement suggest that the Trump regime itself was desperate for a win… and Cornell just handed it to them.
Cornell here has not modeled values. It has modeled cowardice and capitulation, and it’s a stain that should remain on the university going forward. What does this teach current students about institutional courage? What message does it send to faculty who might face similar pressure? What signal does it give to other universities watching this play out? Cornell had a choice between its stated values and expedience, and it chose expedience. That choice will define this administration’s legacy.
Filed Under: capitulation, donald trump, principles
Companies: cornell
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Cowardice And Capitulation At Cornell”
'Now that we've paid the dane-geld the dane is sure to leave!' -Cornell
‘If you don’t stick to your values when they’re being tested, they’re not values, they’re hobbies.’ -Jon Stewart
Between a rock and a hard place
As a fellow alumni, I’ve been wrestling with this decision. From my reading, it seemed that the University was getting close to having to make cuts to programs and staffing. If that is true, then I’m not sure this wasn’t the better option.
It’s going to be hard for the Administration to spin this as much of a win (if they even have time to) and the agreement seems to block further grant termination (but I am very much not a lawyer).
I suspect that I will keep wrestling with this until I see how Cornell responds if/when the Administration returns for round two.
Re: Appeasement is a loser's game for everyone but those being appeased
If that is true, then I’m not sure this wasn’t the better option.
It wasn’t, because even if they had to trim some programs in the short term they still would have been fighting back and had a chance of winning long-term when they could reinstate those programs.
By caving they might as well have sent the regime a signed letter from those running the collage that all it takes is enough pressure and they’ll cave to whatever demands the regime issues, and after this capitulations you can be sure that there will be more demands.
Re: Re: You tell them
It wasn’t, because even if they had to trim some programs in the short term they still would have been fighting back and had a chance of winning long-term when they could reinstate those programs.
Great. You tell the graduate students & post docs who get fired and who can’t complete their research for the degree that at some point they might be reinstated.
Re: Re: Re:
An incredibly shitty option can still end up being “the better option”.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure thing, so long as you’re up for telling the ones that will be feeling the pain going forward when the regime’s next demands start going into effect, because after this capitulation there will be more.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sure. I’m talking about real people and your not, so your moral compass is obvious.
Re: Re: Re:3
*you’re
Re: Re: Re:3
What fictional people do you imagine are going to be paying the regime $30 million, handing over ‘anonymized’ student data on the regular and adding in the regime’s ‘training materials’ and how do you picture none of that impacting the school and those going/teaching there?
(As an aside if you really think this will be the last of the regime’s demands after Cornell folded like wet cardboard and chose the path of appeasement I’ve got some amazing beach-front lunar property I’d like to sell you.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Same old, same old!
I havn’t been here for a while, and I see it’s just as left wing bias as always.
DEI is in fact a RACIEST policy!!! Change the name, doesn’t change what it really is. It is anti White and Anti Asian. It put unqualified Blacks ahead of everyone else. That is 100% what it does. That is in fact racist.
Then what happens? They can’t handle the work and end up failing. Taking a spot that anyone else of any color with higher grades and so forth could have had that spot in school. If you can’t see it, well the Democrat party has always been the racist party and nothing has changed.
Re:
So, it’s cool with you if the next Democratic administration cuts off all money flowing to red states until they eliminate the KKK? Because that’s also raci(e)st and therefore justifies any possible illegal actions by the feds, right?
Re:
hello Russian bot
Re:
Sir,
Are you mentally ill?
Re: Admissions is hard
The idea that GPA and test scores are all you need to know about a person to create a university freshman class is just a terrible assumption on its face.
All these scores have a margin of error that make them unsuitable alone for stack-ranking at the margin of cutoff.
As someone who was brought in on the edge of university admissions as a student, one of the big things you see is that there’s only a loose correlation between test scores and university success. Yes, they’re useful data around the whole person, but in fact digging in around them as well as GPA can be beneficial.
I can tell you that at my university, we saw students whose numbers were on the low side for the class graduate in 4 years while many people who had better numbers didn’t even last the first year.
The Administration wants these numbers to use them as a club, and potentially to harm individual admitted students. Also gotta love the requirement that they be reported quarterly around an annual event.
Re:
Prove it.
Re: Re:
‘They’re black, that means they must be unqualified!’ seems to be the (let’s be generous and call it) ‘thinking’ of racists like that.
Re:
Re:
That is not at all what DEI is. Can you find examples of companies that went a little “overboard” in their policies? Yes, probably. Can you find examples of butt hurt and racist / sexist white males who feel they’re better than everyone else just because they’re white and have a dick? Yes, most definitely.
I work with white males all the time. Many of them do not, in fact, know WTF they’re doing. I also work with woman and people of color who do not know WTF they’re doing. I’ve also worked with plenty of white dudes who get promoted because they know how to schmooze / kiss ass / are white over someone who is eminently more qualified, but is not male and/or not white. If you have NOT seen that then you’re blind and/or only pay attention when it’s not benefiting you.
A lot of business “communities” (IT, finance, upper management, whatever) are, in fact, old boy’s clubs where if you’re not white and a male you will be excluded or looked down as inferior no matter how good you are. Failing upwards for white males just for being white males is a thing.
DEI is all about, all other things being equal, that you give the person of color and/or non-male gender a shot over a white dude because they’ve had it handed to them on a silver platter for the last few centuries.
Additionally, if all you see is “white on white male” all day long then you get a very skewed view of the world. A little bit of “other” in business is a good thing.
Re:
Funny, I thought “academic freedom” was an issue that the was a mainstay of the MAGA movement. Funny how that went out the window the second they were in power. I don’t see how it’s “left wing” to say “gosh, the government shouldn’t be interfering with the policies of private universities.” That used to be a fairly conservative talking point.
Only if you don’t know what DEI means or how it works.
But also, this agreement wasn’t about “DEI” so it’s kinda odd (but very telling!) that you bring it up.
It literally did not do that, and anyone who claims otherwise is an ignorant fool. Are you an ignorant fool?
Ah. Yes. You are an ignorant fool.
So then you must have evidence of this happening at Cornell. But you don’t, do you? Because it didn’t happen.
I’m sorry you’re so blinded by idiot nonsense people fed you in trying to lead gullible sheep towards idiocracy. You fell for it and you should feel bad.
Re: Same old same old
Oddly enough, back in the real world, I’ve found that much more often than not, my non white/cis/male colleagues and bosses have been noticeably more competent than average (and if not, quickly became so).
I also noticed that despite that, they were noticeably slower to get promoted (hell, on occasion I was even the one to be promoted instead).
Re:
The inherent assumption in the statement that affirmative action/DEI causes unqualified minorities to get positions that should have gone to “the most qualified person” is that said minorities cannot possibly be the most qualified person.
Wanna see a racist? Stare into the reflective metal of your shiny kettle, Mr. Pot.
When will Cornell’s accreditation be threatened, like how Columbia’s accreditation got threatened?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wow. You really showed us with your careful spelling and accurate grammar and historical accuracy that you are clearly the most qualified possible person for anything you’ve ever applied to.
James Gross
Whose histories of the early days National Labor Relations Board have sat on my office bookshelf forever.
Re:
Amazing. He used to tell me stories about how he protected the US during wartime by… playing shortstop for the Army baseball team somewhere in the deep south. His goal in life was always to play shortstop for the Phillies. He’s such a great story teller. I don’t think I still have any of his books, but I should pick some up.
Is that information disclosure protection clause even legal? I thought FOIA overrode such things? But I’m no FOIA expert so…
BestNetTech wouldn’t exist without Cornell University.
Deal revoked!
It’s interesting how some profefessors have values, but values are so vanishingly small and rare as to be insignificant in business.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure that Mike laments is already required by US law — thus the mention of 34 CFR (with the current law, the government has to ask for the data, but they could do that regularly anyway). So Cornell effectively agreed to abide by an already existing law. That’s why Kotlikoff told everyone to read it carefully.
University Classes
Wow, Mike, your university experience reminds me of one of my classes. In our Technical Communication department, we had a professor named Phil Bereano. A class he taught was called “Technology Assessment,” which seemed…interesting…in that particular department. But one of the reasons I took the class was that the professor himself was fantastic. Sadly, I do not remember must of the details, but much of the theme was largely what you experienced: working to understand both the benefits and costs of technology, now and in the future.
I am sorry your alma mater caved. I can understand, though, what financial pressure does to a university because my department is not gone likely because of it. Back in the aughts, when state governments were slashing education funding, my former Technical Communication department morphed into Human Centered Design and Engineering. And eventually, they stopped offering my degree completely. As best as I can infer, the move was made at least in part because there is more research money in HCI than in technical communication, and the research money was necessary to keep the department afloat. And that’s what makes what the current government so insidious: Using the financial pressure of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on a whim to bend individual and institutions to their will at a level never before seen in a federal level is outright cruel. And as we all know with this government, the cruelty is the point.