In the real world, negotiation is how we settle our differences. And in a Sun column published a few days ago, a columnist was wrong to attack Cornell for negotiating to secure a favorable settlement with the Trump administration. At a time when our University is locked in an existential battle for its soul, it cannot sit on the sideline and simply hope for the best. It must engage with and persuade the administration of its worth. And negotiation that maintains core values is the most effective avenue to do so.
Universities like our own lack unilateral power. They aren’t political branches with the ability to check others. They definitely aren’t above the fray of politics. They are interest groups like any other business or nonprofit. And Cornell, by negotiating to restore its federal funding, is strategizing to preserve its core purpose: the generation of new knowledge. In the face of a president at the peak of his power, that goal will require playing a purely political game.
In his column last week, Yihun Stith described Cornell’s shifted relationship with the White House as a “secret summer affair”
But Stith’s analogy of Cornell’s lobbying efforts reflects a misunderstanding of the American political system and the role institutions like Cornell occupy within it. There is nothing inherently nefarious about lobbying the federal government. Rather, it’s simply a critical (if imperfect) mechanism through which private actors participate in politics.
The United States has a self-regulating policymaking mechanism of “iron-triangles” where the executive branch, Congress and interest groups shape policy in a channeled and predictable way. All three groups “check” each other in a soft sense, where private support is traded for friendly policies. The triangles are inhabited by both socially beneficial interest groups like the Sierra Club and the NAACP, and more insidious ones like Exxon Mobil or the National Rifle Association. Whether you like it or not, these triangles are where power operates. And interest groups know that. Choosing not to participate doesn’t make an institution more virtuous, just less effective.
Cornell, just another one of those interest groups, has to navigate this reality. It has hired Trump-aligned firms like Miller Strategies not because it endorses Trump’s agenda, but because these firms can open doors that would otherwise remain shut through their networks of federal officials. It is not a gesture of loyalty. It is a calculated move within the only game available.
Absent a massive upswell of public protest, which has yet to materialize on college campuses, the spaces in American politics where policy actually gets formed are often not the public squares. They’re the quiet places like iron triangles, where skilled and deep-pocketed institutions like our own can use knowledge of government to their advantage. Cornell is not selling out by entering those spaces. It is showing up for itself — and ideally for its values.
Mr. Stith’s column misunderstands how the game of politics is played. He invokes the idea that Cornell is making “material donations” to the Trump administration by lobbying: a complete misunderstanding of what the process actually entails. Lobbying is not a bribe. It is not a donation. It's formal policy engagement. And you don’t have to like the system to recognize that it exists. I, myself, have plenty of gripes with iron triangles: they use money as a lubricant that drowns out democratic preferences.
But opting out of this process doesn’t dismantle it, it just weakens your ability to shape political outcomes. In the words of a former Secretary of Defense from across the aisle, “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.” And that’s what Cornell is attempting in a political system that is doing everything possible to crush its mission. Negotiation is progress when it comes to lopsided power dynamics.
The one part of Stith’s column that I agree with completely is this: “Leadership means knowing the difference between protection and surrender.” This insight hits the nail on the head.
Playing the game of politics is pragmatic, but it can quickly slide into apathy and utilitarianism. Cornell, in playing politics, needs to keep its core values strong. While negotiating with the Trump administration, our University cannot lose itself in the process.
It cannot agree to demands that degrade the idea of “any person, any study.” Because that is just as central to Cornell as academic inquiry and generation of knowledge. The real test for Cornell isn’t how well it plays politics, but whether it can keep its identity in the process.
Henry Schechter B.A. '26, J.D. '28 is a senior editor on the 143rd Editorial Board and was the opinion editor on the 142nd Editorial Board. He is a J.D. candidate at Cornell Law School and was a government and American studies major in the College of Arts and Sciences. A native Texan, Henry feels a little out of place in the Ithaca winters — but he kind of likes them. His column Onward focuses on politics, history and how they come together in Ithaca. He can be reached at schechter@cornellsun.com.
