On November 6, the Student Assembly (SA) voted to conduct two related referenda relating to how Cornell regulates conduct. The 36-hour online vote will be conducted under the procedures specified in the SA Charter, probably on December 11-12.
The two questions to be put up for an undergraduate vote are:
1. Prior to 2021, conduct was overseen by the Judicial Administrator, an office independent of Cornell University’s central administration. It is now overseen by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS). Should Cornell’s judicial system be independent of the University’s administration?
2. As a result of the 1969 Willard Straight Hall Takeover, the conduct of students, faculty, and staff was collectively governed under the Campus Code of Conduct. In 2021, the Student Code of Conduct replaced the Campus Code. Should Cornell University return to a community-wide Campus Code of Conduct?
Earlier that week, the Office of the Assemblies certified that 536 undergraduates had signed the petition, triggering the referendum procedures in Article III Section 8 of the charter. First, there will be a seven-day “statement period” where brief 300-word statements for or against the referendum will be collected from the community. Second, there will be a seven-day “promotional period”, where the referendum text and public comments are shared with the community. Finally, at the end of the promotional period, a 36-hour period will be used to hold an online poll on whether to approve or disapprove of the referendum. The result of the poll will then be made public and conveyed to the President.
During the debate on the referenda, every speaker emphasized that a larger voter turnout would be important to make these referenda impossible for Day Hall to ignore.
The meeting allowed everyone in attendance to participate in a “community vote.” The result of the vote was 91 yes and 4 no on the first proposition, and 93 yes and 2 no for the second proposition.
Following the community vote, the SA took a roll call vote of its own members with the result of 28 to 0 in favor of holding the referenda on the two questions and supporting their adoption.
Advocates of the referenda note that the community has lost faith in the current conduct system and seek a return to a system that was in place from 1971 to 2021. That system had a Judicial Administrator Office, which operated independently of the central administration. (The Judicial Administrator reported to the University Assembly rather than to anyone in Day Hall.) Under the former system, the administration did not play a role in deciding when to punish demonstrators, how many demonstrators to arrest, or hear appeals of decisions to impose interim suspensions on students accused of violating the code. A University Review Board, consisting of students, faculty, and staff, heard all appeals rather than Vice President Ryan Lombardi hearing appeals of interim suspensions.
RELATED: Community Support Moves Toward Independent Conduct System
The prior Campus Code of Conduct applied equally to students, faculty, and staff. This avoided the problem of unequal treatment when students, faculty, and staff engaged in a demonstration together with very different results depending on whether the person was a student, faculty, or staff member. In reality, the line personnel interacting with students were considered to be less than fully respectful, and generally treated faculty and staff with more respect and deference. By operating one conduct system for all, students, faculty, and staff are more likely to receive the full due process and academic freedom rights associated with being members of a community operating under a common understanding and mutual respect.
At the time the new Student Code went into effect, Lombardi promised:
“The new Student Code focuses on making sure that the conduct process is objective, transparent, fair, and that students are an active participant throughout the process. Importantly, it is also focused on creating an educational and restorative approach to resolving student behavior concerns.”
Most students exposed to the process found that it involved endless delay and lacked objectivity, transparency, and fairness.
Meanwhile, after four years of operating the current system in a manner that gave rise to many complaints, political pressure forced Vice President Lombardi to address the need for reform. Over the summer, he appointed a committee to review the system with Lombardi and five other administrators serving as voting members, along with only five non-administrators. The proponents of the referenda believe that Lombardi’s review committee is not designed to address the fundamental flaws in the current system, and that the two changes addressed by the referenda questions are fundamental to launching a new, fair process that can hold the community’s trust. The SA addressed these concerns in its Resolution 10, which it adopted on October 9.
The only SA representative appointed by Lombardi to his review committee was Zora deRham, the SA President. Yet, deRham voted in favor of the referenda questions during the roll call vote taken at the November 7 SA meeting. Earlier, deRham was asked why she was selected to serve on the Lombardi review committee, and she answered that she did not know.
A December 1 email from Christian Flournoy, Executive Vice President of the SA, announced the official schedule for the referendum. Undergraduates may submit position statements through December 7, followed by three days of a “promotional period.” A 36-hour online voting period will then follow.
