Cornell’s Student Code of Conduct Revision: Students Demand a Say
Campus Code Calamity
Cornell University is currently in the process of a high-stakes overhaul of its Student Code of Conduct, and certainly not without controversy. In recent months, administrators have launched a formal review of the disciplinary code and procedures, only to be met by vocal resistance from student leaders and faculty representatives that claim that they’ve been cut out of the process. The question: who controls Cornell’s system of justice. Many in the campus community push back, and that this is an undemocratic attempt to revise conduct rules behind closed doors.
From Campus Code to Student Code: A Controversial Shift
To understand this outcry, one must understand the history. From 1971 to 2021, Cornell’s disciplinary code (aka: Campus Code of Conduct) applied to students, faculty, and staff alike and operated through shared governance. Independent of the central administration. An independent Judicial Administrator’s office handled misconduct cases, under the oversight of the University Assembly’s Codes and Judicial Committee. This system originated from the Willard Straight Takeover of 1969, when students demanded (and won) a say in campus governance, including the new judicial process while occupying Willard Straight Hall armed.
This changed in December 2020. The Cornell Board of Trustees approved a new Student Code of Conduct that stripped the University Assembly (UA) of its oversight role and placed authority over student discipline under Vice President for Student and Campus Life, Ryan Lombardi “in ongoing collaborative consultation with the elected Assemblies of the University.”. The change was quite controversial, as it meant that Cornell’s conduct system moved inside the central administration, reducing the independent checks that had been there before. However, the Trustees gave that power subject to his consultation with “the elected Assemblies of the University.”
University officials defended the 2021 overhaul as an effort to make the system more educational and to involve peers in accountability roles. In fact, Vice President Lombardi described the new code as aiming to make students “active participants” in the judicial process. In contrast, critics saw the elimination of the old Campus Code and Judicial Administrator as an attempt to erode shared governance and due process protections.
To replace the Codes and Judicial Committee, the 2021 documents specified that there would be a Standing Student Code and Procedures Review Committee that was a joint SA-GPSA body. However, for the first four years of the new system, no members were appointed to this group.
The 2025 Review: “Lack of Transparency” Sparks Backlash
In August, Vice President Lombardi announced that Cornell would undertake a “systematic evaluation” of the Student Code of Conduct and its procedures. In a campus wide email, Lombardi noted that the current Code has been in effect since 2021 and argued that “much has changed across higher education and within our own Cornell Campus Community.” He then appointed Dean of Students Marla Love to chair the Codes and Procedures Revision Committee tasked with drafting updates by spring 2026. According to Lombardi, this 11 member committee would include students, faculty, and staff and would solicit input broadly to ensure the Code remains effective.
In practice, this rollout raised many red flags. The UA learned that none of its members were explicitly included on the review committee. UA representatives noted that the committee’s only student members were the Student Assembly (undergraduate) and GPSA (Graduate) presidents, who sit on the UA but were not chosen by it.
Lombardi, in his part, insisted that no rules were broken. In a letter to the campus–published in The Daily Sun, he noted that Code itself (as rewritten in 2020) vests the review process in the VP of Student & Campus Life. Lombardi argued that the administration had “sought to make it even more inclusive, in several ways, than is required” by formally inviting student leaders into the committee and planning open forums. He ignored that the Trustees gave him this authority “in ongoing collaborative consultation with the elected Assemblies of the University.”
Despite these assurances, skepticism remained high. After all, from the UA’s perspective, now, the fox would now be guarding the henhouse: the office that gained power in 2021 was now running the review of its very own policies.
The Student Assembly Fights Back
It didn’t take long for student leaders to mobilize. In September, Undergraduate Student Assembly (SA) members introduced Resolution 10, bluntly titled, “Addressing the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance.” Authored by SA member Aiden Vallecillo ‘26, Resolution 10 condemned, “the exclusion of the elected assemblies” from the Code revision and demanded a more democratic alternative.
But the student support of Resolution 10 only grew. When the SA reconvened on September 25, nearly 25 students showed up to back the measure, according to The Cornell Daily Sun. The room, unusually packed for that of a student government meeting, erupted in applause as students began to speak up during the open comment section. Even issues beyond the Code of Conduct (i.e. campus recruiting by Immigration and Customs Enforcement) drew crowds, reflecting a broader demand for student voice in university decisions.
In a very tense Student Assembly meeting, Resolution 10 passed by an overwhelming 21 – 1 margin (with 2 abstentions). Even Assembly President deRahm abstained rather than opposed, the lone dissenting vote came from a different member. The final version of Resolution 10 denounced the administration’s exclusion of elected bodies from the Code review. It also urged that any Code revision must involve a committee of representatives freely chosen by the Student Assembly, Faculty Senate, and GPSA, and that each of these bodies should vote on the changes before they take effect.
The Referendum
The next phase in this battle is now currently unfolding: a campus-wide undergraduate referendum on Cornell’s disciplinary system. The Assembly voted 28 – 0 (with one abstaining vote) to approve the referendum for a student vote, with even the free previously hesitant members now on board. The referendum will be held for 36-hours starting on December 11.
The questions (paraphrased):
1. Should Cornell’s judicial system be independent of the University’s administration?
2. Should Cornell University return to a community-wide Campus Code of Conduct?
In other words, undergraduates will indicate whether they want a conduct system that is at least somewhat separated from Day Hall, and whether they favor reverting to a single code covering the whole Cornell Community as opposed to the current students-only conduct. Both questions are non-binding and any result must be communicated to the university president, who is supposed to respond within 30 days.
As the SA voted on the referendum, a number of speakers noted that a high voter turnout and a strong vote in favor of both propositions will make these demands difficult to ignore. Hence, the high level of undergraduates voting in the referendum is viewed as key to its success.
Meanwhile, the GPSA, University Assembly and Faculty Senate are considering their own resolutions on this area.
Even some faculty and alumni are watching quite closely. The fact that faculty representatives on the UA have sided with students in criticizing the process (and recalling that they too lost authority in 2020) suggests a possible alliance across community lines. It’s a rare convergence of interests: no one who lived through the old Campus Code (whether it be students or faculty) seems comfortable with how the new system has played out.
On November 28, the Faculty Senate announced that it had adopted a resolution critical of unlimited interim suspensions and calls for the administrators serving on the Codes review committee to serve as non-voting members. The Faculty Senate resolution passed with a vote of 80 Yes; 16 No; and 15 Abstain.
What Next?
The coming weeks will show whether Cornell’s current administrators choose to collaborate with the community or stay the course alone. In the meantime, what’s certain is that students are no longer distracted. They are paying attention, raising their voices, and demanding a say in the rules that govern them. On the question of the Code of Conduct, the message from students is clear: “We demand due process” and won’t settle for anything less than a fair, independent system that reflects Cornell’s highest ideas.
