Expert Panel Critiques Conduct System
On April 21, a six-person panel discussed ongoing efforts to review and improve the Student Code and Procedures.
The panelists were: Prof. Sheri Johnson, law; Prof Kevin Clermont, law; Prof Richard Bensel, government; Mahika Mehta, Lead Respondents’ Codes Counselor; Brendan Klein ‘23, Assistant Respondents’ Codes Counselor; and Robert C Platt ‘73 JD ‘76, moderator. The event was co-sponsored by the Cornell College Republicans, the Cornell Review, the Cornell Political Union, and Cornellians United For Free Speech. A video was posted here.
Platt explained that Andrew Dickson White’s original Plan of Organization in 1867 argued that student conduct should be the responsibility of the faculty instead of the administration. The faculty controlled Cornell’s conduct system until 1969, when it was transferred to the University Senate, a student-faculty-staff group. The Senate later became the University Assembly (UA), which had responsibility for the Campus Judicial System until the Trustees met in December 2020 and transferred control of conduct to the Vice President for Student and Campus Life, “in close consultation with the elected shared governance bodies.”
Prof. Bensel described his work with the Faculty Senate that adopted a resolution on interim suspensions. By a vote of 80 in favor and 16 opposed. The resolution called for the current code revision process to be scrapped, and instead, a democratically elected committee should perform the code review. Once the new committee was set up, it would be expected to “disentangle the Code from the central administration.” According to Bensel, the central administration currently controls the police, the prosecution, and the selection of hearing panel members. Similar resolutions were passed by the University Assembly and the Student Assembly.
Prof. Clermont explained that he was asked by President Skorton to revise the code so that more people would be convicted under it. Instead, he revised it for clarity, and it remained in force until the 2020 revisions. However, Title IX cases were spun off into a separate process.
Prof. Bensel outlined the facts of the Dina Ginsburg case. Dina Ginsburg “was a stubborn person” and refused to agree to what OSCCS proposed as “restorative justice.” Restorative justice means that the full weight of the central administration comes down on you. You agree to be convicted under lesser terms, or they will “throw the book at you.” Her case was delayed for 333 days until her panel hearing. The panel voted to acquit her.
Prof. Clermont responded that temporary suspensions lack procedures in the current code, and there is an unclear standard for when to grant them.
Under the case law, before a school can impose an emergency suspension on a student, the school must tell the student what they did wrong and give the student the opportunity to respond. Instead of appealing emergency suspensions to a neutral party, the current Student Code calls for appeals to the VP of Student and Campus Life. The 2026 proposal would have appeals go to a three-person panel: the Vice President, the Provost, and the Dean of the students’ college
Prof. Johnson contrasted the current code to the federal and New York criminal laws. Prosecution of felonies must be approved by a Grand Jury. Without some neutral party reviewing a case before charges are brought, the accused student can suffer permanent harm. He or she will have to disclose the accusation when applying to law school, to medical school, or to many forms of federal employment.
There was one case involving a student who was charged with assault and endangerment for words she posted on her private social media. She was suspended for a semester and ultimately acquitted, but she will have to respond “yes” if asked if she was charged.
In terms of the Speedy Trial acts, such time frames could prevent harm by bringing cases to a prompt conclusion. Cornell can withhold a student’s diploma if they have an open case. This puts great pressure on students to plead guilty to avoid delaying their graduation.
Ms. Mehta described the Office of Respondents’ Codes Counselors (RCC), which consists of three second-year law students and three third-year law students. Prof. Johnson is their faculty advisor. The RCC provides free and confidential advice to students accused under any of Cornell’s codes, including academic integrity violations.
The assignment of cases to specific OSCCS staff is not clear, and the RCC can wait for a month to get a case status update. Some cases are pending for over a year. Mr. Platt suggested that most District Attorney offices use case tracking software, but it is not clear whether OSCCS does.
Questions from the Audience
A student asked whether there are grounds for a mass-tort action against Cornell for operating such a poorly run system.
Platt explained that CPLR Article 78 allows a party to a student conduct proceeding to seek judicial review of the final decision on an expedited basis. When a university is sued under the normal civil procedure, the University’s first move is to claim the lawsuit is out of time because it should have been brought under Article 78. Yet, Cornell has been sued many times under both Article 78 and otherwise.
A second student serves on the CALS academic integrity board. How can a procedure (referring to the Student Code and Procedures) that is so improper, even in the eyes of a biology major, not get corrected?
Prof. Clermont agreed with her point. “Apparently, the central administration really cares about this. This was not an accident.”
Prof. Johnson noted that international students are adversely affected because they can lose their visas if they are suspended. There was a case where one roommate accused a second roommate of assault. The second roommate was suspended and deported. The roommate making the accusation did not bother to show up for the hearing. The one neutral witness fully corroborated the respondent’s story. They were deported and lost $350,000 job offers.
Prof. Bensel notes that the cases that the Faculty Senate has been most concerned about have been the free expression and protest cases. Those are a small percentage of the total caseload. “I think that the central administration discovered recently how useful this revised process is for controlling and influencing speech on the campus.”
The RCC was asked about the 2026 proposed revisions to the Student Code and Procedures. Ms. Mehta noted that in the past two years, the number of interim suspensions grew as a response to demonstrations on campus. Demonstrators facing suspension were forced into signing alternative resolutions. “There was a lot of pushback. We saw a lot in the Sun as well.” Mehta had expected the 2026 revisions to include a lot of positive changes. “And I think we had some positive change, to be fair, just not to the extent that we were hoping for.”
One student asked what incentive the University has for listening to any comments or complaints about the code. Last December, the undergraduates voted in a referendum about the Code, and the administration ignored the referendum results.
Prof. Johnson responded that sometimes they listen, and the limitations on the definition of harassment were a response to pushback.
Platt noted that the lead Supreme Court case on student-on-student harassment is Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, and that the harassment definition in the Student Code does not comply with the Davis test.
Prof. Johnson and other panel members believe it would be very difficult for a student to sue over flaws in the Code and Procedures.
A student asked why these changes are taking place. Mr. Platt blames the federal government. Starting with the Obama administration, the Dept of Education addressed a number of serious social problems, but they did it in a manner that eroded the independence of universities to arrange their own conduct system. So, by the time the second Trump Administration started, there had been a serious erosion of university rights. In March of 2025, the Trump Administration had frozen all of Cornell’s federally funded research in the name of fighting antisemitism. So, it is hard to criticize Day Hall if they take sub-optimal steps in order to avoid further financial moves by the Trump Administration.
