It is redundant, but I think

It is redundant, but I think it is for the benefit of the reader.  Sections 4.1 through 4.20 explicitly state prohibitied actions.  Section 4.21 seems to be a catch-all for "breaking the law."

If 4.21 was present without 4.7, then a reader would have a much harder time understanding the drug-related expectations under the Code.

reply

Process complaints

This entire process has been distorted and shady from the beginning. Between the CJC controversy and then the University's push to adopt them without input/rushed through while students were off campus, the entire thing needs to be redone with students at the center.

why does the code apply only to students? And why has the university decided to lower the burden of proof while exempting itself from any consequences this lower burden of proof would cause? I fail to see any other reason for this rather then the current Administration wanting to crack down on students for what they know to be unsubstantiated claims and evidence-less infractions.

reply

Stick with "Clear and Convincing"!!

In section 20.2, there is a proposal to change the standard of proof to "preponderance of evidence" when in the past it has been "clear and convincing".  I strongly believe that our campus should operate under the principle "innocent unless proven guilty".  Stick with "clear and convincing"!  (Yes, "preponderance" should be applied to Policy 6.4/ Title IX issues especially because there is a real danger to survivors of sexual assault, but the Campus Code of Conduct hearing process doesn't handle that set of cases.)

I also want to say-- I am all for hearings that are open to the public with an opportunity for "cross-examination", and it's not clear whether this code revision is getting rid of that.  The more transparency the better.  Counselors should be able to talk about their cases with each other, the public should be able to know what's going on, etc. 

The university is supposed to be a space of intellectual freedom.  If we change the standard for all cases to "preponderance of evidence", I'm worried that members of the Cornell community with unusual viewpoints and/or marginalized identities will be more likely to be wrongfully convicted.  And the less transparent the hearing process is, the more likely it is that those wrongful convictions will be allowed to happen.  

reply

CJC & OSA Drafts Now Available

Right above the Cornell Statement on Responsible Speech and Expression, you will now find the resolution passed by last year's UA asking the University Counsel to work within two drafts. These drafts, by the Codes and Judicial Committee and Office of the Student Advocate, are now posted as well.

Best,

Logan Kenney

Chair, University Assembly

Lrk74@cornell.edu

reply

Feedback on Student Code of Conduct

I'm hesitant to support the below two provisions.  While well-intentioned, clauses such as these can be enforced in a manner that is far more severe than intended with minimal evidence.  I would recommend deleting these clauses. 

• permitting enhanced penalties for harassment or assault violations that are motivated by bias;
• expanding the code’s treatment of harassment to include all categories protected under New York state’s Human Rights Law and aligning the code’s definitions of harassment with the way in which harassment is defined under Policy 6.4

reply

4.7 redundancy

Given 4.21 why is 4.7 included? Isn't it redundant? 

reply

Revision of the Student Code of Conduct

The process under which the Revised Code was considered in the University Assembly last year was seriously flawed.  For example, the President of the University, along with the President of the University Assembly, endorsed a text that the Student Assembly had prepared at the last minute.  Although there was not enough time to thoroughly examine that text, we did discover that the vast majority of the text in fact came from a text submitted by the University Counsel at the beginning of the academic year.  In any event, the agenda under which the student text was brought before the University Assembly violated the Bylaws of the UA and should not have been the format for deliberations.  There were other violations of procedure during that session that raise serious doubts about the entire process.  In my opinion, the whole process should begin again, taking the draft submitted by the CJC last spring and resubmitting it to the CJC as a basis for their deliberations.  If the central administration wishes to resubmit (the now revised) text prepared by the University Counsel, that should be done as well. Any other way of proceeding has the effect of legitimating a very manipulative and heavy-handed process that cannot help but undermine the legitimacy of the Code.

reply

Hard to comment when we can only see the revised version

Why not post the old version with edits shown, if the document was lightly edited, or side by side versions of the old and new documents, if the document was heavily edited? 

Seeing both versions at once would make the reply and comment process much easier for readers.

reply