Image 01 Image 03

Over 99% of Cornell Faculty Political Donations Go To Democrats And Liberal PACs

Over 99% of Cornell Faculty Political Donations Go To Democrats And Liberal PACs

“This lack of faculty intellectual and political diversity is a reality ignored by the university administration in its various diversity initiatives.”

Please sit down. This is going to shock you to your core, and you might lose your balance.

Close to 100% of Cornell University faculty donations go to Democrats and liberal Political Action Committees.

You okay? I know you didn’t see that coming.

Unless you read our prior coverage of research conducted by the student-run Cornell Daily Sun newspaper:

The Cornell Sun has done it again, A Campus Tilted Blue: 98% of Employee, Professor Donations Go to Dems and Left-Leaning PACs:

Cornell’s employees gave over $900,000 in political donations throughout this election cycle — just $12,775 of that went to Republican candidates and conservative political action committees.

Democratic candidates, including former Vice President Joe Biden, and left-leaning PACs received the remainder: $913,064 a significant difference in the political balance of the University’s employees.

The Sun reviewed the last two years of public filings with the Federal Elections Commission from individuals who self-reported Cornell University as their employer — professors, custodians, student-workers and dishwashers, among the many other University jobs both on and off East Hill. That totaled just over 28,000 individual contributions. Employees at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Cornell’s Qatar campus were not included in The Sun’s analysis.

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign amassed $5,033 from 65 contributors, while Biden received $118,859 from 891 contributors.

From faculty alone, left-leaning candidates and groups received $402,605 to conservative-leaning candidates’ and groups’ $2,377.

Using donations as a measure is not precise. There could be spouses who donated, or contributions made to non-reporting entities (perhaps to avoid harassment — The Sun for example pulished in its article the names of several faculty members who donated to Trump). Nonetheless, it serves as a rough proxy for the ideology of the faculty, particularly the activist faculty. And it reflects a reality on campus.

I was quoted:

Prof. William Jacobson, law, remarked on The Sun’s findings, referring to his fellow faculty as “an intolerant echo chamber in which differing and dissenting political opinions are not welcome,” Jacobson wrote. “This lack of faculty intellectual and political diversity is a reality ignored by the university administration in its various diversity initiatives.”

The university administration issued this laughable statement:

In a statement to The Sun, University spokesperson John Carberry reaffirmed the diversity in Cornell’s academic and intellectual community when presented with an initial conclusion of The Sun’s findings.

“Cornell University is committed to academic excellence and a core belief that learning flourishes in an environment where diverse ideas are presented and debated without hindrance,” the statement read. “We are a community where all voices may be heard and where the dignity of all individuals is protected.”

The university administraiton is in a state of denial. As I wrote about earlier, Cornell ranks low in campus free speech survey, abysmal on student free expression:

My observations that students are scared into silence, and feel the repression, is confirmed by a survey just released which ranks Cornell 40th out of 55 campuses surveyed.

A national campus survey just released by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (the “FIRE”), College Pulse, and Real Clear Education, conducted largest ever free speech survey of college students and rankings of campuses….

Cornell was ranked 40th out of the 55 schools surveyed….

Note the very low score for self-expression I have highlighted. Self-expression is defined in the survey as:

“Self-Expression measures the proportion of students who do not report feeling unable to share their perspective at their college. This score is out of 100 points.”

Cornell’s self-expression score is 35.3, meaning that 64.7 percent of students do not feel free to share their perspective.

It’s going to get worse in this echo chamber as Cornell University takes a major step towards compulsory racial activism for faculty, students, and staff.

[Featured Image: Cornell Faculty ‘Take A Knee‘ Protest 2017]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Connivin Caniff | October 29, 2020 at 9:47 pm

The Ivy League brand is dead.

I would go absolutely nuts if I were surrounded by so much mind-numbing stupidity.

The President’s first action after being reelected should be to completely end federal funding for all stem higher education. All of it. Immediately.

Elections have consequences. End the endless feeding at the trough.

What narrow minded people when they graduate. I remember the Free Speech movement of the 1960s. What a turn around in a short period of time.

Lets face it, Government is subsidizing college through college loans and grants. This allows the educational system to be one big elite welfare system. If Covid proves anything, it proves limited value to many of the actual instructors per dollar.

When you have someone wanting to socialize education with free tuition and paying off student loans, many of us take offense. I have to work and attend college part time to afford it. I paid my college loans off. It took me 11 years to get my BS.

Knowing that I contributed to some many useless professors (their are a few good ones and I guessing Prof. Jacobson is one, just like Amy Coney Barrett) I understand why these liberals would support Democrats. It is their gravy train.

Same goes for the Teachers Union. I am not surprised that 99% of them donate to Dems. Makes perfect sense.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkSmith. | October 29, 2020 at 11:51 pm



    Good for you.

    Sure you got much more out of it than most right out of HS students because of you real life experiences on the job.

I also remember it. My fellow classmates made a lot of noice about “never trust The Man.” But it became apparent to me later that they only meant it when The Man was a Republican.

So your university is about as diverse as, say, the NBA!

“We are a community where all voices may be heard and where the dignity of all individuals is protected.”

Carberry’s Orwellian statement reminds me of the story (perhaps apocryphal) about another Soviet bureaucrat who spoke to an American delegation visiting the USSR during the Cold War. “Soviet citizens have the same freedoms as you Americans do,” he informed them. “In America you can march in front of the White House shouting filthy language against the United States and the American president without fear of arrest. Here you can march in front of the Kremlin shouting filthy language against the United States and the American president without fear of arrest.”

You don’t expect them to work with people who just as well be Nazis.
If you are a Republican it’s just a disguise. I mean c’mon man!

Yet they talk about needing more safe spaces and inclusion, and of empathy, as they create a hostile environment based on exclusion.

They run the place, but their ideas are empty, boneheaded, and even malicious. They are without capacity to understand, so certain about uncertainty.

To them, the earth is flat. It’s rather shameful, the waste of talent with a fascist bent.

Yeah, well..
And let me tell you:
Just the mention of anger management classes pisses me off.

But how many faculty donate?

If I could donate anonymously to political candidates, I would donate to Republicans. But I see that political donations get posted on the internet, so I don’t.

You might have some faculty there that do not wish to out themselves.

This is simply wrong.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 30, 2020 at 6:18 am

Yeah, I gasped in shock and horror that not 100% are Democrats. How could that be?

How could they not have weeded out the handful of free thinking independents? How do the trustees and administrators live with themselves knowing 1% of the Cornell employees are free thinkers unwilling to submit and conform?

Oh well, the dissident 1% won’t work forever. Through attrition I’m confident they can get to 100% quite soon. They are so committed to tolerance and inclusiveness they will not try to isolate and stigmatize the free thinking 1% holdouts to make their lives miserable and force them to resign early.

Oh wait……

Well, they’re gonna be no more “fair” innwhat education’s supposed to be than for example the poli-system was about the Tea Party. The rules are just a mechanism for the right people to win. If they lose, what rules?

It’s a rigged game for a new caste to take care of themselves, since 1920s in the U S, perhaps earlier. Self-referential pseudo-big brains who couldn’t playnsiks successfully playing sims with infinitely harder real life.

If only they were as smart, aware or empirical as they think they are. Their “I win; those ‘them’ people.llose.” lizard brains are all those.

The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua is perhaps the most complete public embodiment. Since at least her graduation speech stunt, it’s been on display: she knows the right for all, on a mission from god justifies tossing any norms agreements or limits, youndon’t agree demostrates you don’t count, n her comfortable life is her due.

The seeds of “higher ed”‘s dissolution are already present. Stop holding up the ivory tower, n we’ll see what happens.from there.

“Highet Ed” is at least three distinct offers, with at least three constituencies n degrees of scam on each.

First, understand the offers, n insist on getting them, or that whoever gets their payoff cover what it takes to get their stuff.

One example is the notion that public funding of highet ed is to provide a greenhouse for talent that can’t afford to cultivate itself. Out group talent that can’t get in or gets forced out is a loss on that mission.

Myself, I’m OK funding some genius kid who couldn’t get or stay in on their own. I’m not OK funding folks who can fund themselves, or frivolous folk. I’m not OK funding anybody’s several year party that gains nothing. Pay for yr own fun.

Funding credentials for folks who intend to stay in the credential machine is a non-starter; going into govt a close second.

Really not shocked.