The Committee on the Future of the American University completed its yearlong charge to envision “the long-term future of Cornell as an American university” via a 238-page final report and a shorter vision statement released on Tuesday.
Both documents consider how the University should address issues including: artificial intelligence in higher education, Cornell’s relationship with the federal government, eroding public trust and how to move forward as the “first American university.”
The 18-member committee, comprising faculty members from eight undergraduate colleges and five graduate colleges, described the “American university” as an institution which has evolved to “serve the practical needs of an industrializing nation” by increasing accessibility to higher education and prioritizing research advancement through agriculture, engineering and science-focused curricula.
The FAU committee was convened in October 2025 by Provost Kavita Bala to address current issues affecting Cornell and make recommendations for the future of the University.
Over the past year, the committee engaged with over 6,000 community members through town halls, webinars and one-on-one meetings. The committee wrote both reports while using AI to synthesize feedback from stakeholders, according to the final report.
Committee member Prof. Drew Margolin, communication, believes the committee answered the charge it was given, he wrote in a statement to The Sun.
“I see the findings providing a kind of spiritual ideal — this is who we want to be,” Margolin wrote to The Sun. “This report is declaring an ‘ideal self’ for the university, something to aspire to and to keep in [mind] when making the very hard choices that are always on the horizon.”
Institutional Commitments
In the vision statement, the committee suggests five institutional commitments that work toward a “renewal” of the University’s purpose.
The commitments include “Rigorous Deliberation and Engaged Discourse,” “Robust Impact,” “Innovation and Resiliency in Research,” “Strongly Connected Community” and “Purposeful Integration and Coordination.”
The committee made recommendations for each commitment, including creating a task force to address rising tuition costs and assess financial aid, prioritizing research quality over quantity, renovating doctoral and postdoctoral programs, evaluating which University spaces should be technology-free and which should incorporate institution-hosted technologies and establishing a Future of the American University Forum for further conversation.
“The pressures facing higher education must not be underestimated,” the vision statement reads. “While the work ahead will not be easy, it is critical that the urgency of this moment and the importance of higher education guide the actions taken to ensure that the future of the American university is bright.”
Artificial Intelligence
As AI expands into educational spaces, the committee asked, “What is a university actually for?”
The committee acknowledged that the rapid development of AI poses threats to students’ learning and judgment in its final report, though it added that AI advancements offer opportunities for research and creative work.
After hearing concerns about AI replacing the value of an education, the committee asserted that “learning is at the heart of the university.” The committee argued that the University can still offer a “transformative education” despite the pressures of AI by treating the technology with “intellectual curiosity” and centering sound judgment.
The committee also recommended a new center dedicated to AI training, workshops and discussions and for the University to deepen its connections with policymakers statewide. It added that students should be equipped for an AI-infused workplace, but stated that AI cannot replace human relationships or engagement in learning.
Prof. David Rand, information science, served on the AI subcommittee. In a statement to The Sun, he wrote that the recommendations will guide students to developing critical skills in the AI age.
“The core of the FAU recommendations — focusing on helping students develop sound judgment — aligns very well with empirical evidence around success in the era of AI,” Rand wrote to The Sun.
“It is clear that AI can augment learning, but it cannot replace what needs to be learned,” Margolin wrote to The Sun.
Relationship with the Federal Government
The committee also set out to examine the “fissures” in the University’s relationship with the federal government, it wrote in the final report.
Currently, this relationship is “under severe strain,” it stated.
“The independence that has always been the precondition for the university’s public value … is being challenged in ways that have not been seen in generations,” the report reads. “A university that can only ask the questions its funders approve is no longer a university in any meaningful sense. It is simply another contractor.”
Regarding research funding, the committee emphasized in its final report that the University should appreciate and devote “significant attention” to its “historically-unmatched” relationship with the government.
It suggests creating a new University foundation for funding, building on partnerships with focused research organizations and arranging a consortium between research universities.
Public Trust
The committee also examined the erosion of public trust in higher education, identifying cultural and economic factors as the two “grievances” behind this erosion in the final report.
The committee noted growing scrutiny over the value of a university degree as tuition prices rise and many raise concerns about “intellectual conformity” on campuses.
“A university that cannot model genuine pluralism of thought, that cannot hold and argue across deep disagreements without dissolving into either enforced consensus or performative conflict, is not promoting learning,” the report reads.
To address lessened public trust, the committee recommended reassessing the criteria for tenure and promotions in the public engagement field, creating new “public impact” professor positions in every college, establishing a “funding boost” program for research involving public engagement and scheduling a monthly “Cornell Day” where the public can tour each college.
Cornell’s Purpose
The committee concluded that in order for Cornell to renew its purpose as “a human-centered, integrated learning ecosystem that cultivates sound judgment,” it must be committed to rigorous deliberation and open discourse, deeper two-way ties with the public, innovative and resilient research, a more connected campus community through “academic civics” and better coordination across the University.
In a Tuesday message to the Cornell community, Bala wrote that she “accepts and endorses” the committee’s report and vision statement.
She added that “concrete next steps” to implement the report’s recommendations will be shared with the Cornell community in the coming weeks.
“Throughout the committee’s work, one fundamental question rose to the top: ‘Is a university education still worth it?’” Bala wrote. “The committee’s answer is a resounding yes — if we clarify and renew the university’s purpose.”
Harlan Flamm is a member of the Class of 2029 in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He is a contributor for the news department and can be reached at hpf7@cornell.edu.
Varsha Bhargava is a member of the Class of 2027 in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She is the managing editor of the 144th Editorial Board and was a news editor for the 143rd Editorial Board. She can be reached at vbhargava@cornellsun.com.
