10 thoughts on “Pending Matters

  1. On the “Resolution on Academic Freedom in Cornell Programs in China and Other Parts of the Global Hubs System”

    This is a really tough decision to vote no on this, especially given that I was a co-sponsor on this resolution.

    In principle, I fully support this resolution. When dealing with universities in countries with authoritarian regimes, Cornell should only do with eyes wide open.

    However, in speaking with my Chinese colleagues, I’ve come to realize that there is a potential for insult and creating a feeling of non-belonging at Cornell. Furthermore, it’s important to realize that academics in China are not representatives Chinese government.

    As a result of this, I, and my department, can’t support the resolution in its current form.

    However, I would be very happy to support a revised version of this resolution that does not call out any single nation.

  2. I want to bring to people’s attention key comments from the CAPP committee for consideration before casting a vote:

    • The resolution is seen as addressing a political question vs. an academic issue
    • Why does the resolution bothers to single out China instead of simply being more generally toward authoritarian regimes which embody specific characteristics?
    • What is the point of the resolution given that Cornell cannot confer any “rights” to citizens of another country in that country or what “necessary steps” Cornell could take to “ensure…freedom of speech” in an authoritarian country that doesn’t tolerate free speech. Given that, it was suggested that Cornell could emphasize its principles but note that since it cannot protect the citizens in those countries who follow those principles, the resolution could state a desire to closely monitor whether the university’s academic freedom policies have traction in a given country, and if not to take some kind of action (whatever that might be.)

    As stated in CAPP comments, because Cornell does not have the authority to confer any rights to citizens from another country, this resolution does nothing but create an exclusive, in place of an inclusive environment for Cornelian of Chinese origin. Given that anti-Asian hate is still looming in this country, more cultural sensitivity is anticipated from fellow Cornelians.

    Also, I could not help wondering whether there would be more resolutions coming about other countries.

  3. I urge senators to vote no on this measure because I do not think these measures will improve the effectiveness of the senate.

    When I joined the faculty over 15 years ago, the UFC was spectacularly un-diverse as was the faculty senate. In the years since, the UFC has diversified as has the faculty senate. For the first time ever, we have a Black woman dean of faculty and we have an Asian woman as associate dean of faculty. I think that this shift toward a more diverse faculty senate and its committees is an important form of transparency and effectiveness. The members of the UFC are elected faculty representatives – the entire faculty votes for the UFC, the associate dean of faculty and the dean of faculty. It’s striking that transparency is an important rationale here; we should perhaps ask WHY a resolution favoring “transparency” emerges at a moment when the faculty senate is becoming more diverse.

    There have been several major changes to make the senate both more transparent and effective: meetings are now recorded so that we have a full textual transcript and a recording of audio. In addition, anyone can post comments to resolutions that are pending. These measures were intended to expand the opportunities for a larger group of faculty to engage with faculty governance and have their voices heard. The meeting times were shifted to 3:30 to accommodate those with care responsibilities. The inclusion of the RTE faculty representatives in the faculty senate significantly expanded who the senate represents.

    Given those changes, it has been profoundly demoralizing that at a moment when we are all invested in hearing more voices on important issues, we learned at a recent senate meeting that on average we hear regularly from the same half a dozen people. In the May 11 faculty forum on the transparency and effectiveness resolution, in a meeting of 117 minutes, two speakers spoke for over 30 minutes of the allotted time for discussion.

    Last August, I was surprised to see a version of this resolution submitted to Dean Eve de Rosa three weeks after she took office as dean of faculty. I can see the resolution is aiming toward transparency, but it feels like surveillance. Before Dean de Rosa had even chaired a single UFC or faculty senate meeting, there were concerns that she needed to be reformed in her approach toward setting the agenda and appointing ad hoc committees, tasks that previous deans of faculty had been trusted with. I am not sure why this correction was necessary. I will note that this measure is being characterized as “common sense.” If it is common sense, I would ask why introduce in the weeks before the first Black woman dean of faculty took office?

    We all agree that we need more voices in the faculty senate, we need more transparency, we need to be effective in voicing our concerns to the central administration. I do not think this resolution will get us there and I would urge you to vote no.

  4. Bringing the strong design proposal to the senate was very valuable. In part, because it allowed catching the multi-college challenge of accounting for design programs elsewhere at Cornell. In this case in CHE.

    It feels like design faculty in CHE have been terribly overlooked in planning for their college and for inter-college activities recently. A big extra dose of sensitivity to their success is in order.

    I hope the leadership of CHE HCD and of the proposed D&T can work out the challenges in a way that elevates both programs. I believe that is possible since the program are complementary and can be presented as distinct and equal.

    Thomas Björkman, Horticulture

  5. Dear Senators: I want to strongly urge you to vote against the proposed resolution on transparency since it is aiming at the wrong target. In my experience as a senator, the resolutions I led were readily put on the agenda by the DoF and the UFC. I have to say that it was a tremendous honor to work with our senate cosponsors, on those as well as other resolutions they taught me a lot about how to work with a good heart, they are among the finest people I have gotten to know. I think Eve and Charlie have been tremendous at enabling voices to be heard in the senate through resolutions. I also have to add that I have tremendous appreciation for what Mike and Martha have done for us all in many many ways. Case in point is to maintain our financial stability and health(!) while insuring staff employment throughout the pandemic. Nevertheless, I am still fuming over what happened a year ago over the joint program between the Hotel School and Peking University: on top of our agonizing over how to respond to Martha’s antiracism initiative, we were faced with a sham vetting of the our relations with China (yes, for me it’s about the Uygurs, cf Frank Rhodes going up against China and ahead of the US State Department to have the former president of Taiwan speak at the reunions) in the proposed program. Charlie bent over backward to design a path for vetting such programs in adherence to Cornell’s stated values. In the last senate meeting I thought we had postponed a decision by tabling further discussion on resolution 174. Rather the admin brought the program before the trustees at graduation. That’s what I meant when I said in the discussion that we were sucker-punched.
    Carl (Carl Franck, Senator from Physics)

  6. Re: the transparency and effectiveness resolution. I do not think that spending senate meetings first approving an agenda, then approving amendments to the agenda, and then turning to approve nominations to ad hoc committees would make the senate work more effectively or have our collective voices heard on matters of importance to the university. If people think we have too little time for discussion now, we will have even less if this resolution passes.

  7. I am strongly in favor of the new Design Technology department. However, I also believe that we need to proceed in a way that is respectful of the concerns of the faculty in the College of Human Ecology.

    I have great respect for the faculty in the department of Human Centered Design. I also sympathize and understand the concerns of these faculty. With the dissolution of their old departments, many of them have been under existential threat in recent years. I can see how the emotional trauma that they have experienced could cause them to feel threatened with a department that has the potential to overlap with theirs.

    With that said, I do not believe that there is significant overlap between the two departments. There many technological aspects of design that HCD neither covers nor is positioned to cover any time the near future. These are aspects of design that AAP is in much a better position to leverage. Design is a large enough discipline that it should span across multiple departments, each with a clear focus of the aspect of design that it is trying to address.

    Just like we have to address “social concerns” when we make a new course, so should Design Technology as part of its proposal to make a new department. It would be nice to see a mission statement that makes clear the specific aspects of design that Design Technology feels it is targeting, and how that will influence its faculty hiring over the next few years. And it should be clear why these areas are not already addressed by the current expertise in Human Centered Design.

    I also think that we should address the issue of the DESIGN course catalogue code (brought up by the chair of HCD). I understand that AAP needed a course catalogue code to pilot this study with Cornell Tech. But DESIGN is a very loaded term. It is like a department calling itself the Department of Science or the Department of Reading. Design is a broad style of education that many departments engage in. No one department should own this catalogue code. It may seem like a minor issue but students do pay attention to these codes when looking for courses outside their major or comfort zone. This code should be retired and Design Technology should be given an appropriate code that identifies the scope of their program.

  8. I strongly support the creation of the Department of Design and Technology at Cornell University.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *