Cornell faculty begin no-confidence vote over handling of rape allegations
publishers 23articles 24first reported 28 Oct, 06:30 UTCdeveloping since 28 Oct · 4 editions
Cornell University faculty have begun electronic voting on a proposed no-confidence resolution in the university administration over its handling of a student’s report that she was gang raped at a fraternity house in 2024. Voting will remain open through Nov. 6.
The vote followed a closed faculty meeting Wednesday where professors debated the administration’s response and rejected an attempt to postpone voting until an independent investigation is completed. According to an Associated Press recording of an earlier closed meeting, President Michael Kotlikoff acknowledged missteps but defended his leadership and asked for time to implement reforms.
A woman identified in court documents as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging that seven Chi Phi fraternity members sexually assaulted or exploited her in October 2024 and that Cornell mishandled her complaints. All seven men have denied the allegations. Cornell’s disciplinary process resulted in two expulsions, while other students received penalties including suspensions, workshops or essay assignments, The Guardian reported.
Cornell police investigated, but the local district attorney initially declined to pursue charges. The Guardian reported that prosecutors reopened the case last month and that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul appointed Attorney General Letitia James as special counsel to investigate it.
Kotlikoff has said senior administrators should not intervene in confidential criminal investigations. Faculty supporting the resolution argued that the university had repeatedly failed to address sexual assault, while opponents warned that a rapid no-confidence vote would not resolve the underlying problems.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 3 articles, 2 with the publisher's own text; 3 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 30 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 23
- Source articles
- 24
- Given to the writer
- 3, 2 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 3
- This version written
- 30 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →