May 22, 2024

Cornell “Whistleblowers” Reveal How

DEI Statements Are Used As A Litmus Test To
Eliminate Qualified Faculty In Hiring Process
__________________________________________________________

Internal Cornell Records Provided To CFSA Show How The University

Discriminates Based On Personal Beliefs & Identity Profiles Rather Than Merit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Faculty and staff within the Cornell Community have reported to CFSA details of DEI-driven
faculty hiring abuses practiced by Cornell University. CFSA legal advisors indicate that these
practices are unlawful and violate both US and NY State Anti-Discrimination and Employment
Law. Based on internal Cornell documents provided to CFSA, the below report presents
‘smoking gun’ evidence which exposes how DEI Statements are used to discriminate against
faculty candidates in order to maintain ideological conformity and DEI dogma on campus. By
uncovering these Cornell practices, CFSA hopes to move Cornell away from such abusive and
prejudicial hiring policies. The full report exposing these Cornell policies is presented below.

Background On The Problem

Because of its special importance, this is a longer and more detailed Cornell Campus Report
than usual which addresses a pressing issue now confronting Cornell – namely, will the
university terminate its various DEI policies which are both discriminatory and unlawful. To
understand the DEI problem, “the devil is in the details” – so this report looks at the details,
which tell a most alarming story. CFSA urges every Cornellian to carefully read and consider
the contents of the below “whistleblower” Case Study report provided by faculty and staff within
the Cornell Community.

Martha Pollack made the advancement of aggressive DEI policies the hallmark of her Cornell
Presidency. Ms. Pollack stated that, under her administration, DEI dogma would always have
equal standing with Free Expression, Open Inquiry, and Academic Freedom on campus. After
the dismantling of DEI at MIT and many other leading schools (see Ref A, Ref B, Ref C, and
Ref D), Cornell remains a follower rather than a leader in instituting DEI reforms. Sadly, the
Cornell Community is now learning that Pollack’s DEI policies not only discriminate against
prospective faculty, staff, and students, but also have created a toxic and hateful environment
which has laid the foundation for the ongoing outburst of virulent antisemitism on campus.

This Cornell Campus Report will begin to expose the methods the Cornell Administration has
used in recent years to discriminate against faculty and staff who failed to adequately conform
to Cornell’s DEI ideology. The US Congress and the US Department of Education are now
investigating Cornell to assess associated violations of US law. With the planned termination
of the Pollack Presidency, there exists an opportunity to reverse the many harmful DEI practices
now plaguing the university – including those described herein. CFSA urges that such major
reforms now be launched by Cornell’s newly reconstructed leadership team.

CFSA maintains a Cornell Campus Report Email HOTLINE which members of the Cornell
Community utilize to report university practices and policies which impede Open Inquiry,
Academic Freedom, Viewpoint Diversity and Free Expression on campus. Such HOTLINE
communications provide CFSA a steady stream of campus reports which illuminate the
discriminatory actions now practiced at Cornell that impose ideological dogma and suppress
free thought in all aspects of campus life. These Cornell HOTLINE communications have
produced the information presented in this report.

Cornell Uses DEI Statements In Faculty Hiring

To Enforce Viewpoint Monoculture
In its Cornell Campus Freedom Initiative, the highly respected American Council of Trustees
and Alumni (ACTA) has assessed Cornell’s DEI Statement policy as follows :

“Cornell is working to ensure that its students won’t hear a variety of

viewpoints by mandating that faculty applicants pass an ideological
litmus test to get a job…(Cornell) is becoming a place where everyone is
pressured to subscribe to the same ideas.”
- American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)

After CFSA / ACTA’s urging, certain website language alterations to Cornell’s DEI Statement
requirements have been secretly made by the university over the past 18 months without any
public announcement on a policy change (see last Cornell Campus Report ). With these
alterations and the recent termination of the Martha Pollack Presidency, it appears that Cornell
is finally beginning to respond to increasing campus and public calls for major Cornell policy
reforms (including the recent reinstatement of the SAT test in admissions as urged by CFSA)
in order to reverse the damaging DEI-driven politicization, discrimination, and educational
degradation of the university over the past decade.
However, despite these website wording changes, Cornell continues to practice blatant
discrimination in the hiring of faculty. It has long been evidenced that Cornell has a penchant
for hiring faculty and staff (especially in the humanities and social sciences) who hold extreme
and one-sided political views as detailed in an April 2024 issue of The Cornell Thinker and
related press reports (see Ref E and Ref F ). However, recent confidential disclosures provided
to CFSA make clear how the Cornell Administration uses DEI Statements to reject candidates
for STEM faculty positions who hold personal views that do not adequately conform to the “DEI
GroupThink” dogma now dominating campus life. Below, internal Cornell documents provided
by members of the on-campus Cornell Community are reviewed which show how viewpoint
“litmus tests” are now practiced by the university in faculty hiring in STEM fields.

Cornell Breaks Its Own Rules In Faculty Hiring

On its website, Cornell publishes guidelines on “Best Practices In Faculty Recruitment”. These
guidelines are heavily embedded with DEI-driven mandates which direct all academic
department Search Committees to give special advantages and consideration to faculty
applicants having certain viewpoints and belonging to particular demographic groups. A
detailed analysis of Cornell’s Best Practices guidelines shows that the great majority of the text
included in these guidelines (i.e. 72% -- or 2025 out of 2802 total words) is devoted exclusively
to promoting such “diversity hires” in filling new faculty positions. This clearly indicates that
instituting intense DEI-driven (rather than merit-based) hiring bias is the primary purpose of
these guidelines. Yet, these Best Practices suggest an attempt at fairness by stating the
following :

“Ensure each relevant candidate’s work is thoroughly reviewed.”

“Use consistent standards and expectations for all.”
Unfortunately, the Case Study presented below makes clear that Cornell is NOT pursuing these
objectives and that DEI-dominated processes are eliminating prospective faculty hires without
a thorough review of candidates’ work and without using consistent standards for all. Thus, DEI
is NOT “leveling the playing field” to fully include underrepresented groups – but, instead, is
“heavily tilting” the playing field in favor of faculty candidates possessing preferred demographic
characteristics and viewpoints.

The Politicization Of The Cornell Faculty

Cornell employs hiring practices which promote certain preferred socio-political viewpoints in
Cornell humanities and social science departments where anti-American, anti-Western, anti-
Judeo-Christian, anti-White, antisemitic, anti-Israel, anti-Colonial viewpoints have become
popularized. This one-sided, politically-based hiring in “non-science” subject areas has long
existed at Cornell as evidenced by today’s faculty (see Ref E and Ref F). Based on current
faculty composition in the humanities and “soft subjects”, observers now see Cornell and other
Ivy universities as bastions of anti-American teaching and activism which act as proxies for
foreign governments and interests that are hostile to the US and its historical foundations.
Recent pro-Hamas demonstrations at Cornell (and the university’s tolerance of same) reinforce
this anti-US perception. Cornell President Martha Pollack has unwisely made this politically
motivated “official statement” on behalf of the university :

“We are ashamed of the injustices that are perpetrated in our country every
day…. (The US) is, in many ways, still so badly broken.”
- Martha Pollack, President of Cornell University

However, Cornell has become not just anti-American but anti-Cornell itself. DEI administrators
declared this on Cornell’s website :

(Cornell) was founded on and perpetuates various injustices. These include

settler colonialism, indigenous dispossession, slavery, racism, classism, sexism,
transphobia, homophobia, antisemitism, and ableism.
It is clear that DEI ideology and policies on campus which originated in the humanities and have
been promoted by the current Cornell Administration create fertile ground for such anti-
Americanism and anti-Cornellism. Of course, “people are policy” in any organization and DEI
dogma now dictates the people that are hired and admitted at Cornell today.

Corruption Of The Pure Sciences

Due to the non-political nature of the study of pure science, many have felt that the STEM fields
(i.e. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) would escape the oppressive
monoculture that has come to dominate other academic disciplines at Cornell. However, under
Pollack policies, DEI mandates now require all prospective Cornell faculty members to pledge
special treatment and advantages to faculty and students belonging to certain favored identity
groups with no requirement to provide such educational benefits to other faculty and students.
These “unequal treatment” pledges are memorialized via formal “Cornell Statements of
Contribution to DEI” (i.e. DEI Statements) made by faculty. As described in the Case Study
below, every STEM faculty applicant must submit such DEI Statement to initiate the hiring
process. These DEI Statements (called “loyalty oaths” by ACTA) are wholly unrelated to subject
area expertise, research accomplishments, instructional achievement, or scholastic merit in
STEM fields. Nevertheless, Cornell treats these statements as the “first priority” for screening
out otherwise qualified STEM applicants. By placing such socio-political loyalty pledges before
academic excellence in assessing applicant qualifications, the faculty hiring process has
become badly distorted and educational quality has been seriously degraded at Cornell.
Recognizing this DEI disaster, MIT (the preeminent STEM-focused university in the US) has
concluded that “DEI Statements don’t work” and has recently dropped the use of such political
loyalty oaths in faculty hiring. MIT President Sall Kornbluh says this :

“Compelled (DEI) statements impinge on freedom of expression,

 and they don’t work.”
- Sally Kornbluth, President of MIT

Former Harvard President Larry Summers, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under US
President Bill Clinton, adds this :

“I was delighted to see my Alma mater MIT eliminate required diversity

statements… Requiring statements of fealty from faculty job candidates is an
affront to almost every academic freedom value. Harvard’s leadership knows that
diversity statements are morally bankrupt. Whether they follow MIT’s lead is a
test of courage for them.”
- Larry Summers, Former President of Harvard University

Unfortunately, Cornell President Martha Pollack has stated that DEI Statements present no
significant conflict with Academic Freedom and Free Expression and has publicly stated that
Cornell will defend DEI as steadfastly as it defends Free Expression. Thus, as the below Cornell
Case Study shows, the selection of new STEM faculty at Cornell continues to be driven by DEI
mandates. In addition to the educational dysfunction created by such DEI policies, legal experts
argue that the discriminatory methods now employed in faculty hiring for both STEM and all
academic disciplines at Cornell violate both US Anti-Discrimination Laws and New York State
Employment Law. The below Case Study illustrates this discrimination in action.

A CORNELL CASE STUDY :

CORNELL DISCRIMATION IN “PURE SCIENCE” FACULTY HIRING

Background On Faculty Hiring & DEI Statements At Cornell

Cornell University is an elite Ivy League university. The university enjoys a particularly strong
reputation in STEM. Therefore, tenure track faculty positions at Cornell are highly sought after,
extremely competitive, and typically attract a very large number of applicants. In Cornell’s
STEM departments, over 1,000 candidates may apply for a single tenured faculty opening. In
hiring such faculty in the past, Cornell pure science departments conducted an arduous (and
often times global) selection process aimed at identifying the most highly qualified candidates
within a particular field of science. This is no longer the case.

In the past, superior academic accomplishment, exemplary research, outstanding scholastic

innovation, instructional capabilities, and a distinguished professional publication and service
record constituted the key criteria targeted in making a tenured faculty hire at Cornell. However,
beginning in 2020, the administration of Pres. Martha Pollack began requiring special “DEI
Statements” to be submitted by every candidate for open tenured faculty positions in all all
academic departments throughout the university. These DEI Statements mandated that
EVERY tenure track faculty candidate at Cornell share his / her personal views and planned
methods for embedding DEI ideology and teaching in all classroom and research activities. DEI
criteria (rather than academic excellence) became the priority consideration for filling all new
faculty positions at Cornell.

This DEI Statement requirement constituted a major departure for Cornell from its historical
hiring practice by replacing academic merit-based hiring with methodologies mandating that
certain personal and socio-political viewpoints be subscribed to by every faculty member hired
– along with the requirement that such viewpoints be embedded in curricula and instructional
practices in all pure science disciplines. Various non-science Cornell subject areas such as
Africana Studies, Sociology, and Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies, have always assured
that new faculty hires have certain specified socio-political viewpoints. But with its DEI
Statement requirement, Cornell now mandates that all candidates for hire must hold pre-
determined personal views, beliefs, and teaching philosophies which conform to the university’s
prevailing DEI ideology.
Through this means, the Cornell Administration has forced scores of academic disciplines
(including Mathematics, Language, History, Music, Medicine, Economics, Natural Sciences,
Engineering, Business, Law, Agriculture, Architecture, etc) having no relationship with new and
untested DEI social and political theories to put DEI Statements and DEI instruction front-and-
center in all faculty hiring decisions. With this new mandate, DEI Statements have become a
viewpoint “litmus test” which each faculty candidate in every academic discipline must pass in
order to be hired by Cornell.

Cornell’s Method For Discriminating Against Faculty Candidates

As previously reported by CFSA, Cornell’s website language has migrated on its use of DEI
Statements from being “required” to being “asked for” to being “invited” to being “embedded
in other applicant submittals”. However, subsequent to making such website language
changes, Cornell still employs DEI Statements as an absolute “litmus test” to reject faculty
candidates whose personal views on social / political topics which are unrelated to their field of
expertise do not conform to Cornell’s DEI dogma.

Persons engaged in research and instruction in a certain STEM department at Cornell have
provided CFSA the internal Cornell documents cited herein which clearly outline the
discriminatory DEI methods used in faculty hiring today. The “whistleblowers” who have
provided these reports to CFSA have requested strict confidentiality due to fear that, if their
identities or departments were identified, their employment would be terminated by Cornell as
punishment for their exposing unlawful hiring processes now practiced by the university.
Therefore, while the specifics described below are detailed, accurate, and verified by internal
Cornell documents, the identities of the relevant persons and departments are not given. The
Cornell documents provided to CFSA specify the following method being used by the search
committee (“Search Committee”) of a STEM department at Cornell:
STEP 1 : The open faculty position was widely advertised and exposed by the Search
Committee to the applicable academic community in a normal outreach and promotional
process.

STEP 2 : Through this process a sizable and demographically diverse applicant pool was
identified – all of whom had completed the full paperwork and submittal package (including DEI
Statements from every applicant) necessary for Cornell’s consideration of their candidacy. As
part of the process, the head of the Search Committee reported that the applicant pool was
highly “diverse”.

STEP 3 : Prior to commencing a review of the candidate submittal packages, the Search
Committee established a “rubric” aimed at performing a comparative qualifications assessment
comprised of 5 elements : 1) DEI Statement; 2) Research Strength; 3) Instructional Capabilities;
4) Professional / Volunteer Involvement; and 5) Student Advisory Potential. In the documents
received by CFSA, DEI is listed as the “first element” within the 5-element rubric. The implication
of this “rubric” is that each candidate should be assessed through the integrated lens of all 5 of
the above elements to determine the comparative strength of the candidates. However, instead
of employing a 5-element rubric, DEI criteria became the sole “first priority” in candidate review.

STEP 4 : The 5-element rubric was set aside and a special DEI “litmus test” review was
conducted on each candidate. Several designated subgroups of the Search Committee were
established which had this singular purpose : To review only the DEI Statement of each
candidate as the first credential to be assessed.

STEP 5 : Based on the above DEI “litmus test” alone, 13% of the candidates were eliminated
from further consideration because of weak or unacceptable DEI Statements. CFSA believes
that eliminating candidates on this basis violates New York State Employment Law.

STEP 6 : The same DEI-focused Search Committee subgroups then separated out the most
experienced candidates who possessed longest tenure in the subject scientific field. These
candidates were reviewed based on their “demographic profile”. Referring to the goal of
“equity” (i.e. equitable outcomes in hiring), these more experienced (and likely older and less
BIPOC) candidates were eliminated from further consideration for being too qualified. It is
reported to CFSA that this process is used to eliminate candidates from “less favored” identity
groups while advancing applicants from “more favored” identity groups. Through this screening
process, an additional 8% of the applicant pool was rejected. CFSA believes that the elimination
of these candidates for such “equity” reasons likely violated US and New York State Anti-
Discrimination and Employment Law.

STEP 7 : Through the DEI screening of Steps 4, 5 and 6 above, roughly 21% of the
candidates were rejected based on the personal views and values noted in their DEI Statement
or an unfavorable view of the demographic profile of the “most experienced” candidates. At
this stage, the only element of the 5-element “rubric” that had been applied to screen out 21%
of the candidates was DEI criteria. There had been no consideration of the other four rubric
elements of Research, Instructional Capabilities, Professional Involvement, or Student
Advisory.
REMAINING PROCESS : The internal Cornell documents provided to CFSA do not
describe the final process used to evaluate the 79% of applicants who survived the initial two-
step DEI-based screening nor the demographic / identity profile of the candidate who was
eventually hired. However, based on the 5-element evaluation rubric which incorporated
continuing DEI screening as the “first eminent” of the rubric, it seems likely that unlawful DEI-
based hiring preferences continued to be applied throughout the entire hiring process to
eliminate candidates who had less favorable DEI Statements and/or demographic
characteristics.

Cornell’s Falsehoods Regarding Use Of DEI Statements

Cornell’s use of DEI-based discrimination in the above Case Study occurred AFTER the
university’s website had already declared that DEI Statements were no longer required for
submittal by any faculty applicant. As evidenced by the facts disclosed by internal university
documents, the “first” and “second” hiring screens utilized to evaluate the applicant pool were
based on DEI Statements submitted by every single candidate. These two initial DEI screens
were used to identify, separate, and eliminate each of the 21% of candidates who were first
rejected. Therefore, it is clear that Cornell’s claim that DEI Statements are no longer required
in faculty hiring is categorically FALSE. In addition, Cornell’s claim that a multi-faceted “rubric”
is used to assess each candidate is FALSE – since the Cornell documents indicate that a two-
step DEI “litmus test” was employed in the initial screens. Likewise, the university’s claimed
intent to fully review every applicant’s academic qualifications before assessing each candidate
is FALSE – since, for those applicants rejected in the initial two screens, Cornell did not conduct
a full review of their academic credentials. The bottom line is that DEI considerations were used
as the primary metric for eliminating the initial 21% of applicants.

Legal Summary
This Case Study indicates that private, personally held views unrelated to the STEM subject
area and academic expertise of the applicants were used as criteria for eliminating faculty
candidates. The Case Study also indicates that demographic and identity characteristic profiling
was used to reject candidates. The end result of this DEI screening was rejection of 21% of
applicants without a full comparative review of their academic credentials promised by Cornell.
Based on a review by CFSA legal advisors, such practices are discriminatory and constitute
violations of both US and New York State Anti-Discrimination and Employment Law.

Are Lawsuits Coming Against Cornell ?

Given the fact set of the above Case Study, one might ask : Why have legal cases not yet been
brought against Cornell related to such discriminatory DEI practices? The answer is twofold.
Firstly, when the 21% of faculty applicants were rejected, the candidates were not told the
reason for their elimination from further consideration. Therefore, these candidates were not
privy to any evidence that might exist regarding Cornell’s unlawful handling of their candidacy.
Secondly, if any evidence of an aspiring professor’s mistreatment by Cornell became known by
the applicant, such applicant would recognize that the public spectacle of bringing a lawsuit
against Cornell would : i) almost surely prevent such applicant from being hired by any other
leading university, almost all of which engage in similarly discriminatory DEI practices; and ii)
be personally and professionally ostracized by the DEI-dominated cultures existing at most
leading US universities, research institutions, and scholarly publications. For these reasons and
to avoid self-harm, any aspiring professor would be loathe to become a plaintiff in such legal
action against Cornell – regardless if such litigation might be won or lost. However, the tide is
now turning in US academia. Before long, Cornell and / or other leading US universities are
sure to become subject to lawsuits for such DEI-driven employment discrimination ( see Ref G,
Ref H, Ref I, and Ref J ).

What Should Cornell Now Do ?

Cornell’s first priority should be to appoint a presidential replacement for Martha Pollack who is
dedicated to stopping the further advancement of Cornell into its ongoing DEI disaster. The
next Cornell President must maintain both the mission and the backbone to reverse current
campus DEI policies and to correct the course of the university. If Cornell continues its current
discriminatory DEI practices, it seems sure that the university will become the target of litigation
for DEI related abuses. Cornell’s attempts to obfuscate its DEI policies by quietly making
changes to its website are far from sufficient and will not save the university from legal liability.
Litigation challenging Cornell’s DEI abuses could result in substantial financial penalties being
levied against the university. To prevent being found legally liable for employment and / or
admissions discrimination and associated loss of its academic reputation and standing, Cornell
should : i) completely drop any requirement for faculty, staff and / or students to submit DEI
Statements as part of employment, promotion, and / or admissions processes; ii) terminate the
solicitation or collection of any such DEI Statements (or related information), whether required
or optional, in university hiring and admissions; and iii) prohibit employment Search Committees
or Admissions Officers from using or considering any form of DEI related information or
submittals in the university’s decision making processes. Such policy shifts are now being
implemented at MIT and other leading universities nationwide. Such policy changes have been
recommended by CFSA for Cornell’s immediate action :

CFSA Open Inquiry Policy Recommendations To

Cornell University
Such DEI policy overhauls have been demanded by major Cornell donors (see the January
2024 Jon A. Lindseth Letter To Cornell Trustees and related press coverage in Ref K, Ref L,
and Ref M) as well as major donor and academics at other Ivy League schools from across the
political spectrum (see Ref N, Ref O, Ref M, and Ref P). These calls for university DEI policy
overhauls are non-partisan, being made by scholars, donors, and thought leaders having a
wide range of social and political viewpoints.

Cornell President Martha Pollack instituted an expansive array of damaging DEI policies during
her leadership tenure and has expressed die hard dedication to abusive DEI practices. The aim
of these policies is to fundamentally change the purpose and mission of Cornell University from
the pursuit of academic excellence to the advancement of one-sided political and social
engineering agendas. With the recently announced termination of the Pollack Administration, a
great opportunity for the new Cornell President (Michael Kotlikoff) to begin the process of
shifting the university’s focus away from DEI political activism and back to the university’s
fundamental purpose of academic and research excellence. CFSA urges Mr. Kotlikoff to seize
this opportunity to return Cornell to its founding educational mission before its reputation and
standing are permanently degraded. Cornell cannot fix its DEI problem with secret webpage
language alterations or halfway measures. As advised by Cornell Law Professor William A.
Jacobson, the university must fully eradicate DEI abuses on campus :

(Cornell’s) DEI initiative was a colossal mistake that

cannot be tweaked around the edges. It must be removed
wholesale, weeded out root and branch.”
- Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School

While CFSA must preserve confidentiality with respect to the specific Cornell personnel and
academic departments which have reported the above Case Study information, CFSA would
look forward to the opportunity to further discuss these DEI policy matters with the Cornell
Administration. Over the past year, CFSA has made numerous requests to meet with Cornell
leadership for this purpose. However, thus far, CFSA has received no response from the
Cornell Administration or Trustees. This silence is deafening.

Next Case Study

Beyond the Case Study presented herein, CFSA has received additional “whistleblower
reports” from on-campus Cornell personnel which expose other discriminatory DEI abuses
employed by the university. In particular, these CFSA HOTLINE reports describe blatant racial
and demographic profiling which purposefully exclude great numbers of well-qualified faculty
candidates from consideration while focusing only on those applicants possessing specific
“preferred identity” characteristics. The practices memorialized in these reports are even more
egregious and extreme than those described in the above Case Study. Just as in the above
Case Study, these Cornell DEI practices are clear violations of both US and New York State
Employment Law. This next case study will soon be published as a CFSA Cornell Campus
Report. Stay tuned….