Alexander Thomson is an assistant clinical professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine in the College of Veterinary Medicine. As the Faculty Senate considers a vote of no confidence,…
Alexander Thomson is an assistant clinical professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine in the College of Veterinary Medicine. As the Faculty Senate considers a vote of no confidence, the politics of blame threaten to derail the difficult work of real reform. It's bonfire season in Ithaca, and Cornell has no shortage of combustible conditions or faculty eager to strike a match. Demands for resignations, accusations of bad faith and public denunciations have set the discussion around Cornell's sexual violence crisis ablaze.
This type of rhetoric would be right at home in Washington D.C., but in importing the worst habits of national politics into Cornell, we have undermined the cooperation, intellectual rigor and evidence-based problem-solving necessary to address serious issues effectively. In short, we seem to be confusing the intensity of our anger with the effectiveness of our actions. The Faculty Senate's proposed resolution of no confidence in University leadership exemplifies this problem.
Consisting of only a single sentence, it identifies no specific failures of leadership, names no responsible officials and proposes no corrective action. It tersely declares a sweeping loss of confidence in an undefined "central administration," asking faculty to render judgment against University leadership before the Sally Yates investigation has concluded. More remarkably, according to an account from a Faculty Senate representative, the Faculty Senate has passed no resolutions specifically addressing sexual assault in the past decade.
If true, this raises an uncomfortable question: Why, having exercised so little of its own institutional influence over this longstanding problem, is the Faculty Senate suddenly so eager to condemn the efforts of administrators who have arguably taken more action? University administrators are not politicians, and the Faculty Senate is not an opposition party. Our administrators have the extraordinarily difficult responsibility of maintaining an institution through successive crises, balancing competing obligations while preserving the environment in which we, as faculty, can pursue our academic mission.
They are not single-handedly responsible for solving society's problems, nor should we expect them to do so without our active participation. There is also a perverse incentive created by indiscriminate criticism. What message do we send to leadership by censuring them without first establishing, specifically and factually, what they have done wrong? If administrators are publicly tarred and feathered regardless of their actions, can we really expect their continued initiative, transparency and proactive engagement?
This is a source-linked briefing. Read the original report from The Cornell Daily Sun .