On September 25th, the Student Assembly (SA) held its regular weekly meeting to discuss next steps in reforming Cornell’s Student Code of Conduct and Procedures.
The meeting began with a presentation by Brendan C. Klein ‘24, who leads the Office of Respondent Code Counselors. That office is a group of law students, supervised by a law faculty member, who provide free legal representation to students accused of violating the Student Code, Policy 6.4, or academic integrity standards.
Klein outlined the manner in which Christina Liang, Director of the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) has implemented the code procedures, including failure to give students timely notice of the charges against them, and arbitrary use of the interim suspensions pending a hearing. Her practices leave students “confused and anxious.” Interim suspensions are imposed without evidence or due process.
Klein says it takes weeks to assign an OSCCS investigator to a case, and that multiple emails are needed to get a meeting with OSCCS about a case.Although the Respondent Code Counselors do not handle all cases, they do have an idea of the caseload and time required for OSCCS to process cases in their system.
Cases rarely go to a hearing before a hearing panel that consists of three students, a faculty, and a staff member. Instead, after a period of time, frequently months, OSCCS sends out an offer to settle based on a reflective essay, online education, or some other minor punishment. As a result, the interim suspension in many cases exceeds the actual punishment in the settlement agreement.
Under New York law, students have a right to appeal, both interim suspensions and final determinations after a hearing. Under the old code, appeals of interim suspensions were to the University Hearing Board. Under the new code, appeals go to VP Ryan Lombardi, who has yet to reverse an OSCCS interim suspension.
Case Precedents
Under the old code, every case was summarized with the names removed so that there would be consistent interpretation of the Code and the punishment imposed for specific violations. This resource was available to anyone, including accused students.
When the University Assembly (UA) was debating the comparative features of the old and new codes in 2020-21, the UA proposed that this resource be carried forward under the new system. Dean Marla Love and the advocates of the new code fought this suggestion. Every penalty would then be negotiated for “restorative justice,” raising concerns that students would lose the equal treatment and consistent outcomes promoted by the summaries.
Klein’s testimony publicly revealed for the first time that OSCCS continues to maintain this collection of case summaries. Upon request of a Respondent Codes Counselor, OSCCS makes a few relevant case summaries available, but OSCCS would not allow the counselors to search the summaries for themselves.
Public Testimony
Following Klein’s presentation, the SA listened to about 45 minutes of testimony from a group of students attesting to the unfairness of the OSCCS and advocating that Resolution 10 be adopted without amendments.
Resolution 10 responds to VP Lombardi’s proposal to hand-pick an 11-member committee to review the Student Code and Procedures, with 6 of those seats filled by administrators. The resolution calls for a judicial system that is independent of the central administration. It also calls for the public release of the OSCCS annual reports and other data relating to caseloads. Instead of Lombardi’s membership picks, Resolution 10 would have the SA, Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, UA and Faculty Senate approve code changes.Each of these groups would also provide three members of a drafting committee.
Protesters from the September 2024 ILR recruitment fair in Statler Hall explained how they were arrested after the fact and then prosecuted in downtown courts and also under the Student Code. The downtown court cases were dropped, but OSCCS proceeded to impose drawn-out interim suspensions on the students.
Protesters from the “Pathways to Peace” event noted the inconsistency in imposing interim suspensions, and the hardships created.
The terms of the interim suspension appear to be arbitrarily framed by Ms. Liang. In some cases, a suspended student can only leave a dorm room to attend class. In another case, Ms. Liang allowed the student to work out at a gym. In one case, two protesters were individually suspended and Ms. Liang denied their request for conjugal visits.
During the public comment period, Jonathan Lam ‘26 of the Cornell Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union endorsed Resolution 10.
The Assembly Acts
The SA then discussed Resolution 9, which deals with whether Cornell will collaborate with Immigration Customs and Enforcement to allow ICE to recruit on campus. One SA member noted the administration’s opposition to the resolution. To which an SA member replied, “I don’t bow down to fascists, and I don’t care.” Resolution 9 was approved subject to another reading at the SA’s next meeting.
Resolution 10, which deals with how the Conduct system will be reviewed, was amended. The resolution called for OSCCS to provide caseload and processing time data for 2021 through 2025, but an amendment expanded the request to cover earlier years under the old code as well.
A number of speakers address the intense pressure that the Administration placed on SA members to not pass Resolution 10.
The SA voted down an attempt to water-down Resolution 10 by deleting the language stating ”the administration’s failure to collaborate with the elected Assemblies is a betrayal of Cornell’s system of shared governance.” In the end, the SA moved to adopt the resolution subject to a final reading at the next SA meeting.
