Both students and faculty are moving toward a serious reform of Cornell’s conduct system.
From Cornell’s founding until 2021, Cornell’s conduct was handled independently from the central administration, first by the faculty, and after 1970 by elected student-faculty-staff shared governance bodies.
In December 2020, the Board of Trustees took the abrupt move of removing conduct oversight from the University Assembly and dividing the responsibility under different administrative offices: student conduct under Vice President Ryan Lombardi, faculty conduct under the Provost, and staff conduct under the Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, now Christine D. Lovely.
One common complaint with this new system is that Ryan Lombardi can classify on-campus political demonstrations as Student Code violations and then hear appeals of those same cases.
The new system has failed to win the confidence of the community, particularly on the question of selective enforcement, uneven penalties, interim suspensions that last months, and a lack of due process (interim suspensions are imposed before there is a full investigation or a hearing providing accused students with due process).
The two documents the Truestees adopted in December 2020, the Student Code and Student Code Procedures, specified that there would be a joint Standing Review Committee on Student Code and Procedures to examine problems and propose reforms. Unlike prior oversight by a University Assembly (UA) committee, this committee was a joint body between the Student Assembly (SA) and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GPSA). However, for four years, this committee was not staffed with members and did not meet.
After a great deal of political pressure, Vice President Lombardi has hand-picked the members of this group and appointed six administrators as voting members with five non-administrators.
In response, the SA adopted Resolution 10, which calls for a return to a conduct process that operates independently of the central administration. Resolution 10 also calls for a reform effort involving all of the elected shared governance groups, such as the SA, GPSA and University Assembly, rather than Lombardi’s committee. Resolution 10 passed by a vote of 21-2-1. Under the SA Charter, President Kotlikoff is required to respond within 30 days.
Faculty Senate
Meanwhile, in September, a faculty group filed a proposed resolution with the Faculty Senate which would condemn the abuse of the interim suspension process and call for reforms. In a close vote, the Faculty Senate on October 10, voted to instruct the sponsors to revise the motion, have that document reviewed by another faculty committee and to bring the results back for a vote at the November Faculty Senate meeting.
The group has now revised its resolution and expanded its list of co-sponsors to 29 faculty. The revised draft now notes that “justice delayed is justice denied” and calls for the expedited scheduling of cases so that they don’t drag on for months. Similarly, interim suspensions pending would be limited. The resolution would also call for a conduct system that operates independent of the central administration:
“Be it further resolved that the OSCCS, in its enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures, should be independent in its decision-making from the
influence of the central administration, especially when the administration is the complainant”
It would call for changes to the conduct system being approved by the elected governance groups rather than Vice President Lombardi and President Kotlikoff.
The proposed faculty resolution was then reviewed by the Committee on Academic Programs and Policies (CAPP) CAPP usually reviews academic policies that affect more than one college. By assigning this to CAPP, the University Faculty Committee decided to approach this as an academic program rather than a free expression or academic freedom issue (which is covered by a different committee.
On September 30, CAPP published a critique of the revised resolution. CAPP was split between members who found the tone of the resolution to be “antagonistic, and those who find the tone as critical but not inappropriately so.” The critique goes so far as to suggest that the OSCCS should be authorized to write its own rules regarding when interim suspensions can be issued and for what duration. Although CAPP could not reach a majority position on a set of recommendations, it is clear that CAPP does not acknowledge the role of the faculty and elected shared governance bodies in limiting Day Hall’s disciplinary powers when necessary to protect free expression or due process.
These viewpoint differences will be debated at the November 12 Faculty Senate meeting.
Undergraduate Referendum
The students who supported SA Resolution 10 are now collecting signatures for a fall 2025 student referendum on the topic. Under the SA Charter, if 450 students sign a petition, all undergraduates can vote on a specified question. Prior referenda addressed divestment from firms that were involved in the Gaza conflict, a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, and the free distribution of tampons on campus. The wording of the ballot referendum question must be approved by the SA, with brief statements in favor and against. Although referenda are non-binding upon the President, they are a clear demonstration of undergraduate opinion, and prevent Day Hall from claiming that most students want what Day Hall wants.
The current petition phrases the questions as “Should Cornell’s judicial system be independent of the University’s administration?” and “Should Cornell University return to a community-wide Campus Code of Conduct?”
On October 30, the petition organizers submitted a petition with 540 signatures to the Office of the Assemblies. Aiden Vallecillo ‘26, one of the referendum organizers, explains that the referendum is needed because “Students deserve the basic rights of due process and free speech that they fought for in 1969. The University’s central administration believes we’ve forgotten that, and this referendum shows them we have not.”
A committee of the University Assembly is also drafting resolutions on these subjects, so more action is expected within the next few weeks.
