Cornell University’s recent agreement with President Donald Trump puts an end to the government’s investigation into civil rights issues at the university. While it does lessen, it doesn’t completely eliminate, Cornell’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The university’s DEI framework now feels, well, a bit like a zombie. It’s still there, but not fully vibrant.
Still, there’s a chance for it to be revived.
This arrangement is advantageous for both sides. Cornell—which I’ve had the privilege of teaching law at for 18 years—will gain access to hundreds of millions in federal funds that were previously stalled due to an investigation linked to the tragic events in Israel on October 7 and the harassment faced by Jewish students.
Additionally, Cornell will incur a $30 million penalty and commit an extra $30 million towards agricultural research, alongside its substantial annual budget of around $6 billion.
The impetus for the federal investigation was quite valid.
One former student is currently incarcerated for threatening Jewish individuals on campus. There’s also a professor who sparked outrage online by expressing he felt “elated” about the Hamas uprising. Meanwhile, anti-Israel activists have rallied for an uprising, set up camps, and disrupted university functions.
It’s no surprise that many Jewish students, some of whom have even testified before Congress, felt like they were being targeted.
Cornell now professes to uphold “the principles of academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy.” However, this so-called independence has fostered a predominantly left-leaning faculty, contributing to various troubling events on campus.
Locally, there are voices that argue the university has given in to pressure from certain groups.
Yet, Cornell’s leadership has a responsibility to shield both faculty and students from online harassment. So, in a way, they’ve accomplished their goal.
The White House has also framed the agreement as a win, claiming it ensures Cornell “maintains merit-based standards, abides by federal law, and fosters a safe and excellent academic environment for all.”
This aspect is crucial for broader reforms in higher education, potentially pressuring other elite institutions to adopt similar changes.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon described the agreement as a transformative action by Ivy League schools aimed at dismantling divisive DEI policies.
Still, it’s clear that Cornell’s DEI efforts will continue.
I’ve often said that Cornell’s DEI agenda “must be dismantled completely” because its focus on racial and group identities has tainted the entire university.
This agreement doesn’t seem to be as detrimental to DEI as I had wished.
Not that I’m shocked. Institutions that require a virtue-signaling “land acknowledgment” at the start of every official gathering are likely to go to any lengths to uphold their DEI beliefs.
Cornell has already indicated it sees DEI changes as mere rebranding—like switching the Office of DEI to “Inclusion and Belonging” and renaming the Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives to the Office of Academic Discovery and Impact.
However, this deal has some risk implications for Cornell’s DEI approach.
The agreement stipulates that Cornell must train faculty based on a July document from the Department of Justice, which outlines “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funds on Unlawful Discrimination.”
This is a significant development. It means that universities are now expected to align with government standards regarding faculty conduct—especially when that faculty is often among the most ideologically charged groups on campus.
No educator can now claim ignorance of the Justice Department’s civil rights guidelines.
Yet, I remain skeptical about trusting Cornell.
The president has already dismissed claims that the agreement would instigate any real change, asserting that the federal guidelines aren’t binding. Such remarks might breach the agreement to implement those guidelines moving forward.
Even while Cornell appears to disregard Trump’s stance, his executive order aims to abolish DEI initiatives not just in federal government work but across the private sector as well, giving the Department of Justice and other agencies ample authority to enforce both the letter and spirit of the deal.
As part of the equal protection project, I plan to inform the Attorney General and others of any DEI activities that we suspect violate the law, but it’s crucial that federal authorities act swiftly and decisively.
To be clear, in a labyrinth of words and obscurity, Cornell’s DEI elements endure. If the landscape of higher education simply waits out a possible second Trump term, those initiatives may come back stronger than ever.
Only ongoing federal supervision and enforcement can prevent a resurgence of DEI practices that many view as misguided.
