SA R42 (2025-2026): A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9

Rejected by the President

• Resolution:
  SA R42 (2025-2026): A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9
• Day:
  April 24, 2026
• Action:
  Rejected by the President
• Summary / Notes:
• File Attachments:
• Text Attachment:

  Dear Zora, 

  I must reject Resolution 42: A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9. This resolution fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Student Assembly and its relationship to the university.   

  The SA was created by Board resolution adopting its initial charter in 1981 and has not been delegated authority to set policy for the Division of Student & Campus Life, Cornell Career Services, or other administrative offices. As set forth in Article II of the charter, the SA has “the authority and the responsibility to examine matters that involve the interests or concern the welfare of the student community and to make proposals concerning those issues to the appropriate officers or decision-making bodies of the University.” The charter’s reference to “legislative authority” does not confer decision-making authority, but rather delineates subject matter areas appropriate for SA proposals. 

  The SA is a valued constituent part of the University, with an important role to play in representing the interests of the undergraduate student body to the administration. It is not an independent legal entity, and as such cannot enter into contracts on its own behalf or pass resolutions that become binding after a defined period.  

  The charter does indicate a model for how the SA and the university administration should interact. This includes the expectation that the president will respond to reported legislative actions within thirty days. In the vast majority of cases, I am able to respond within that timeframe. As I mentioned during my visit with the SA this spring, occasionally, the volume and timing of resolutions, the contents of a particular resolution, the pressing demands of other university business, or a combination of all these factors, make such a timeframe impractical, and in those circumstances, I notify the SA to expect a delayed response.  

  I reaffirm my commitment to provide timely responses to the SA’s resolutions once they are conveyed. I ask the SA to do its part in facilitating efficient review by drafting and promptly conveying resolutions that are consistent with the SA’s charter-specified advisory role, carefully considered and researched, and conveyed in a good-faith effort to represent the interests of Cornell’s undergraduate student body. 

  Finally, as set forth in my response to Resolution 9, “Cornell values students having the opportunity to consider a comprehensive set of possibilities for their careers after graduation, and does not screen employers on Handshake for political motivations or affiliations.” I firmly believe that Cornell students have the right to choose what careers they seek to pursue and with whom they seek to pursue them. The university declines the SA’s request to dictate those career choices by removing employers from Handshake based on the SA’s political preferences. 

   

  Sincerely, 

   

  Michael Kotlikoff 

  Michael Kotlikoff, V.M.D., Ph.D., Sc.D. (h.c.)

  President and Professor of Molecular Physiology

  Cornell University