On Friday, February 6, Dina Ginsburg had her hearing before a panel of the University Hearing Board. The case arose out of the Pathways to Peace panel discussion in Bailey Hall on March 10, 2025. That means that there was a 333-day delay in holding the hearing. There was a similar delay last summer for another graduate student, Sriram Parasurama, who was held responsible for disrupting an ILR job fair at Statler Hall. Sriram Pasurama waited for a hearing for 279 days and then waited for more than a month to announce the decision. In the meantime, both graduate students were placed under an “interim suspension,” which represented a serious punishment without any due process.
This case was handled by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS), led by Christina Liang and Marla Love, under the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures. The need for this judicial system to be independent of Day Hall and to be expanded to cover students, faculty, and staff was the subject of undergraduate referenda in December.
Ginzburg claims that she had disrupted the session for about five seconds as she left the audience seating and went to the lobby of Bailey Hall without being escorted by the police. At the lobby, a Cornell Police member asked her for her identification without explaining what she had been accused of doing. Body camera footage from the lobby showed that the chief administrator for the office of the president, Kristin Hopkins, expressed dissatisfaction over the number of detained protesters on behalf of an individual referred to as “Mike.” She stated in an interaction with police that he “was just hoping the number would be more than eight.” President Kotlikoff later acknowledged that he was the “Mike” being quoted.
So, the Ginzburg case calls into question how the broad objectives of holding a group of protesters accountable translate into the duty of each hearing panel to apply general rules fairly to specific individuals for specific conduct. In general, all accused are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by “clear and convincing evidence.”
General Reactions
“As a faculty member who was involved in the UA’s Codes and Judiciary Committee, I have been following the handling of these cases for a decade. Although I continue to respect the volunteers who serve on the University Hearing Board, the current OSCCS processing of cases leaves much to be desired regarding due process in terms of the length of time it takes to have a hearing,” said Prof. Randy O. Wayne, Plant Science.
Kate L. Bronfenbrenner, Professor Emerita of ILR, participated in the hearing as a faculty advisor to Ginzburg. She said, “Under the rules of the hearing process, my role during the hearing was limited to asking her questions and advising her during caucuses.” Bronfenbrenner also said, “As a scholar who has spent decades studying employer and union disciplinary procedures and practices, I am deeply dismayed by the bias, unfairness, and complete lack of due process in how Cornell has pursued Dina’s discipline. The administration’s mishandling of her case lays bare the deep flaws in the current Cornell Code of Conduct.”
Prof. Richard F. Bensel. History, said:
“As the Dina Ginzburg case amply demonstrates, we must have a neutral adjudication process in which the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge, and those who hear appeals are separate and independent. What we have now is a process in which these things are combined in one authority, an authority that, in addition to other things, constantly misrepresents itself by, for example, refusing to acknowledge that police officers, formally acting as complainants, are often actually representing a high ranking official in the central administration whose role thus remains anonymous. In the Ginzburg case, President Kotlikoff actually directed arrests at the scene of the event and has thus been involved, directly or indirectly, in the entire prosecution. To imagine that the adjudication of this case has not been tainted from the very beginning strains credulity.”
Hearing Details
Wayne noted, “The purpose of the hearing panel and the actual hearing is for objective third parties to sort out the true facts as the accused student confronts his/her accusers.” In most cases, a Cornell Police officer testifies as to what he personally witnessed. But in this case, no witness appeared to support Cornell’s case. As a result, the hearing was much shorter than last summer’s hearing for Sriram Pasurama. “I thought it was important to have a Cornell Police witness testify at the hearing, including having questions posed to the Police witness from the panel. It was unfortunate that no Police witness appeared,” said Wayne.
The hearing panel consisted of three students, one staff member, and one faculty member. On the panel were: Dena Bauman, Law faculty; Anthony Condo, Jr., the Polo Head Coach; Hanqi Guo, undergraduate; Alexandra G. Miller, undergraduate; and Riya Patel, undergraduate. Wayne said, “I thought that the Hearing Panel appeared engaged and fair. I was also impressed by Karen G. Vicks, who is a full-time OSCCS employee who chairs the panel.”
Because Ginzburg has Weingarten rights from the Cornell Graduate Students United – UE union, she was also supported by Matthew Chaffinch, a union representative. In addition, Vinnie Clementine, the OSCCS Office Coordinator, attended the hearing to provide technical support for the Zoom component of the hearing.
The hearing is only public when requested by the accused. Although a transcript and recording are made of the proceedings, that record is not distributed unless there is an appeal. Any appeal would be heard by a panel of the University Review Board. Since August 2021, any appeal of an interim suspension pending a hearing is decided by Vice President Ryan Lombardi instead of the Review Board.
Typically, a panel votes on a result at the end of the hearing. To date, no decision has been announced, but Ginzburg remains suspended until the decision is released. No reason has been given for the delay in announcing the hearing result.
Ginzburg’s public hearing provides another view into how OSCCS processes cases where the accused does not confess or agree to a plea bargain.
