Cornell has a well-established system of shared governance, whereby representatives of each segment of the Cornell community have some power to make decisions on behalf of Cornellians. These powers were granted by the Cornell Board of Trustees following the 1969 student takeover of Willard Straight Hall and the ensuing turmoil. Originally established as the University Senate in 1970, Cornell’s shared governance structure has changed and evolved over time. The current 5-body system has been in place since 1993, when the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly was admitted into the governing structure.
Governing Bodies and their Jurisdiction
The shared governance structure consists of 5 bodies, each representing a different segment of the Cornell population. Each body has different powers, though they all share the power to issue statements and resolutions concerning campus issues.
Employee Assembly
Representing university employees, this 35-member council deliberates issues affecting Cornell’s staff. They can issue statements on problems or submit policy recommendations to the president for approval, provided those changes relate to employee life at Cornell. Some recent resolutions include support for a policy banning relationships between students and employees, supporting a plan to offer employees a part time bachelors program, and submitting improvements for the employee training process.
Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate operates as both an advocate and a resource to Cornell faculty. Senators consider resolutions pertaining to the operations of professors and lecturers, often having tangible effects on the classroom. The office of the Dean of the Faculty also serves as an information center for professors, with advice, guidance and online forums for professors and lecturers to discuss issues. Recently, the Faculty Senate spearheaded an initiative to improve Cornell’s pool facilities. It was also extremely influential during the pandemic, with numerous resolutions supporting stricter COVID policies and advocating professor discretion for when to move classes online.
Student Assembly
The Student Assembly is the undergraduate branch of Cornell’s shared governance structure. According to its website, the SA handles undergraduate issues and has “legislative authority over the policies of the Office of the Dean of Students and the Department of Campus Life, and establishes the undergraduate Student Activity Fee and guidelines for its distribution.” The $155 per semester Student Activity Fee provides the funding for Cornell’s Student Activities Funding Commission (SAFC), among other organizations. Significant recent resolutions include a vote to expand printer access on North Campus, a proposal for disarmament of CUPD, a denunciation of former Cornell President Jacob Gould Schurman, and supporting the Faculty Senate resolution to build a new natatorium.
Graduate and Professional Student Assembly
Composed entirely of graduate students, the GPSA serves as the voice of graduate students on campus. They represent graduate students’ issues and have particular responsibilities in ensuring housing and transportation for grad students. They also set the Graduate Student Activities Fee ($42.50 this semester), which is used to fund graduate groups and organizations. Last year, the assembly passed numerous resolutions, notably supporting a movement to build better pool facilities and an effort to increase recycling can locations on campus.
University Assembly
The UA has delegates from each of the other bodies, combining to make an assembly that represents the interests of the entire campus. The UA often participates in significant university projects and has substantial authority to propose legislation. Pending approval by the president, the UA has the power to alter the Campus Code of Conduct, the guiding document for Cornellian etiquette and behavior. Past resolutions have included proposals to alter Cornell’s judiciary system, calls to increase waste receptacles on campus and to build a new natatorium, and a demand that Cornell require COVID-19 vaccination for all members of the Cornell community.
Legitimacy
The Student Assembly has a legitimacy problem. Recent elections for assembly positions have garnered diminishingly small turnouts. The previous Student Assembly election had participation from 10.55% of the population, with current president Valeria Valencia receiving support from just 862 students, or 5.8% of undergraduates. With support from such a slim portion of the student body, one wonders how the SA can claim to truly represent the views of undergraduates.
A 1971 Daily Sun article sheds light on the gravity of this issue, noting then-university-officials’ worries about legitimacy. Former university president Dale R. Corson, who presided over the formation of the shared governance structure, criticized a New York law stipulating that university trustee elections must have 40% turnout to be considered legitimate. However, Corson cautioned that Cornell had “no alternative but to live with the 40 per cent requirement.”
Robert B. Purcell was quoted as saying, “If the student trustees are elected by the student body or by persons who are in turn elected by the student body, then 40 per cent must vote. If the senators are not elected by 40 per cent of their constituencies, then they are not eligible to elect trustees.”
Even at the formation of Cornell’s shared governance structure, questions about the legitimacy of student representation circled. At that time, student senators “received 18.2 percent [sic] of the constituency vote,” nearly double that of today’s SA.
The SA claims to represent the students, and often passes declarative statements of condemnation or support for certain people and ideas. Examples include resolutions:
- Expressing “support for reproductive rights”
- Demanding Cornell support the Black Lives Matter movement
- Condemning ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
- Proposing disarmament of CUPD (attempted twice, rejected the first time)
- Proposing dissolution of all ties with the Ithaca Police Department
- Demanding a denunciation of former Cornell president Jacob Gould Schurman for his role in the Philippines (a campus controversy over which there is vigorous debate)
- In support of the incorporation of students’ phonetic name pronunciations and pronouns in all professors’ class rosters
It does not take a large stretch of the imagination to question whether the SA has the right to promulgate such broad opinions concerning political, ideological and, often, national issues, especially with so little election turnout. Current and future students will have to grapple with how to address this problem, by increasing student participation, reducing the scope of the SA, or by using some other means.
Scandals and Politicking
Another concern is that student politicians run as an attempt to boost their own resume, rather than an earnest desire to improve conditions on campus. This is a persistent issue, and one not unrelated to the turnout problem. In 1981 the Daily Sun reported then-Trustee Chairman Jansen Noyes as having condemned students for using their positions to “create problems and personal ego trips.” Noyes went so far as to recommend removing student positions from the board.
A cursory glance at the Cornell Assemblies website reveals that the Student Assembly files far more performative resolutions than any of the other assemblies. In fact, they filed more resolutions total than the other 4 assemblies combined! Additionally, the SA has famously and repeatedly been embroiled in reputational conflicts and scandals.
To name a few: Outrage erupted at the 2019 Julia Feliz hearings when Joseph Anderson, at the time SA president, shouted down fellow representatives. Notably, Anderson shouted down Patience Koku, a member of the public who was from Nigeria, who failed to use Feliz’s preferred pronouns.
In 2020, a disarmament hearing made national news when then-serving SA President Cat Huang approved a proposal to allow minority students to speak before white students. Several representatives who opposed the resolution were stripped of their offices. Subsequently, doxing plagued numerous students on both sides of the issue.
Then, in 2021, numerous SA representatives criticized SA President Anuli Ononye’s political maneuverings as breaking protocol and violating the SA bylaws.
At the least, the SA is involved in annual (and sometimes biannual) scandals. Such bedlam is hardly the mark of a healthy or effective government. Setting the SA on a better path will be an important challenge for Cornell’s next generation.
This piece was originally printed in the Cornell Review’s September 2022 Freshman Edition.
