Innocent until proven guilty

Do not lower the burden of proof. Do allow students to be able to represent themselves with an advisor, law student, or lawyer.

reply

Preponderance of Evidence is Not an Acceptable Threshold

Please do not lower the burden of proof. Protect student's rights and maintain a clear and convincing evidentiary standard.

reply

Protect Student Rights

By lowering the burden of proof from a "clear and convincing" argument to one of preponderance, it is inevitable that innocent Cornellians will be wrongly accused and found guilty of academic misconduct.  Protect Cornellian rights and reject this amendment.

reply

Section 4.21 Must Go: Don't Throw The Kitchen Sink at Students

The University Assembly has been doing a good job of separating conduct that is prohibited in the Code from everything else.  It's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Now comes the University Counsel's draft that includes as a violation Section 4.21 which says, "Violation of any federal, state, or local law, regulation, or ordinance."  Under this provision, if someone has a grudge against a Cornell student he can dig through every possible law and then throw the kitchen sink in a Formal Compaint against the student.  Cornell will let this happen in order to provide "an educational experience" to the student.

New York State has been slow to legalize marijuana.

Many of the LGBTQ rights granted have been in the form of court cases nullifying statutory law as "unenforcible."  However, those laws have remained on the books for decades after their nullification.  If Section 4.21 is allowed to stand, a person could file a complaint expecting Cornell to enforce a rule that courts would not.

If Cornell graduate students try to unionize in the future, Cornell could apply federal labor regulations against those students in a manner different than the National Labor Relations Board's interpretations.

Don't allow anyone to throw the kitchen sink at students, particularly in areas where the University Hearing Board and the University Review Board lacks expertise.

reply

Do not lower burden of proof

Please protect student's right by maintaining the clear and convincing evidentiary standard

reply

Section 4.21 Must Go: Don't Throw The Kitchen Sink at Students

The University Assembly has been doing a reasonable job of defining what conduct violations should be enforced under the Campus Code of Conduct and leaving out the rest.  They separate the wheat from the chaff.  In contrast, the University Counsel's draft gives us Section 4.21, which says, "Violation of any federal, state, or local law, regulation, or ordinance."  So, under 4.21 if someone has a grudge against a Cornell student, he can dig through a hugh amount of legal materials and find some kitchen sink to throw at that student  -- all in the name of providing the student "an educational experience" by way of a Formal Complaint.

New York State has not been at the forefront of legalizing marijuana.

New York State has a long, slow history of establishing LGBTQ rights through court cases that nullify laws on its book, yet such laws remained without enforcement for years. See: https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/new_york.htm  Yet, Section 4.21 says that if some conduct rule is still on the law books, it can be the basis of a valid complaint under the Code, even if no New York court would dare enforce that law.

So, if graduate students restart their efforts to unionize, Cornell can regulate their conduct using federal labor regulations in a manner inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Board's interpretations.

Cornell students deserve a clear and finite list of conduct that is prohibited by the Code, and not "everything including the kitchen sink."

reply

Do not lower the burden of proof

The Preponderance Standard will result in the punishment of innocent students and will negatively affect the academic and professional careers of these students. Lowering the burden of proof will clearly lead to more students found culpable and punished. Such an environment is more punitive than one with a higher burden of proof-- directly contradicting the first goal of the code revisions.  

Among cases where the choice of burden of proof would lead to different outcomes, what specific reasoning has led to the conclusion that the damages to students affected by code violations is greater than the damages done to innocent students who are punished? The majority of students disagree with this conclusion. The revision of the burden of proof, then, is not in the interest of the students as a whole. 

Please do not lower the burden of proof. Protect student's rights and maintain a clear and convincing evidentiary standard.

reply

Do not lower the burden of proof

The preponderance standard is just an excuse to punish students in the absence of convincing evidence. How is this fair? This university is comprised of very high achieving students with great prospects in their future. We are all very driven and capable. But the preponderance standard could easily become a hurdle for many that may jeapordize our abilities to land a job or gain further education or research opportunities.

Even the United States court system uses an "innocent until proven guilty" standard. Why does Cornell deserve the right to be the judge and jury without even having all of the information? Disgusting. 

reply

Preponderance standard supports the community as a whole

In response to the comments posted below asking which students could possibly favor the "preponderance" standard, I respectfully suggest that it could be students who have experienced the effects of conduct that violates our community standards - students who have been directly affected or who have experienced the impact of such behavior in their communities. The conduct process does not "prosecute" or "convict" students.  Its purpose is to support an educational environment in which all students can study and learn in a supportive, safe community. The OJA believes that the preponderance standard best balances the rights of complainants, respondents, and the community as a whole.

The Campus Code of Conduct was established in essentially its current form some fifty years ago, in the face of concerns by students who felt the conduct process did not adequately protect their interests.  In 2017, another group of students raised concerns based on their experiences at Cornell. Those concerns led to the Presidential Task Force on Campus Climate, charged with making recommendations for institutional change that would lead to a more diverse and inclusive campus climate.  A subcommittee of that task force recommended a conduct process that was more educational and less formal (except in the most serious cases, in which it is appropriate to provide a more formal process with additional protections for respondents).  The proposed revision of the code of conduct came in response to those concerns, among others, and to incorporate the student conduct function under the umbrella of Student and Campus Life.

Barbara Krause, Interim Judicial Administrator

reply

Do not lower the burden of proof

Lowering the burden of proof will result in many innocent students being punished. How can anyone be okay with such injustices as punishing the innocent? You should uphold our American values of freedom and liberty, not suppress them from innocent people with such a low burden of proof. That goes against the founding principles of our country. As Benjamin Franklin said, "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

reply