The current debate over the Interim Expressive Activity Policy raises the question of who writes the rules and sets up the procedures to process cases under such rules.
First, under the Middle States accrediting standards, Cornell and peer institutions must show “regular engagement with faculty and students in advancing the institution’s goals and objectives;” Cornell has a long history of shared governance, which is at its zenith on campus conduct issues.
Second, the expectation for shared governance of conduct issues dates back to the 1969 Willard Straight Hall takeover. Prior to 1969, such issues were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the faculty, although they had some students serving as voting members of the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs and on the hearing boards.
During 1968-69, the Afro-American Society (AAS, predecessor of the present BSU) protested efforts to hold AAS members accountable under the then-existing conduct system, which the AAS labeled as “racist.” Dissatisfaction with the judicial system was a primary cause of the Straight Takeover, and the agreement that ended the takeover included both nullification for the reprimands imposed on the AAS members as well as the promise to develop a new system that would be seen as fair.
The Trustees delegated codes and judicial systems to a student-faculty-staff Cornell University Senate in 1970. The Senate, and its successor the University Assembly (UA), retained those authorities until August 2021. The UA selected members of the hearing panels as well as the Judicial Administrator who acted as the prosecutor. It amended the Campus Code and procedures from time to time. The system operated independent of Day Hall, and the Campus Code of Conduct addressed many of the topics now being addressed by the Interim Expressive Activities Policy.
Third, on December 10, 2020, the Trustees suddenly removed this responsibility from the UA and transferred it to VP Ryan Lombardi, on the mistaken assumption that this was mostly about students. However, these codes, policies and procedures also dramatically affect the rights of faculty and staff to express themselves and exercise free speech. Under the Henderson Law, Cornell must have rules for the maintenance of public order that apply to students, faculty, staff and invitees to campus. Obviously, those topics are beyond Lombardi’s student-focused wheelhouse.
Cornell is now playing catch-up to replicate all of the work and policies that were in place before the Trustees shifted this from the UA to Day Hall. Understandably, the UA, the Student Assembly and the Faculty Senate all have expressed surprise that new policies are being implemented without “buy-in” from the community. In fact, on February 22, the Student Assembly passed Resolution 58 that called for the suspension of the Interim Expressive Activities Policy until a new mechanism is established for community review and approval of such policies. Although Cornell can print up whatever verbiage it wants, conduct rules will not work without the moral authority of the community supporting them.
The only selling point for the current system is that it offers more opportunities for alternative dispute resolution than the prior systems. However, forcing the accused into an ADR is unfair, if the underlying hearing process is an unfair alternative as well. Most experts have pointed out serious flaws with the new system and with the proposed interim policies. These flaws cannot withstand the political pressures of a hotly contested environment where both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel groups demand both free expression and a fair conduct process.
It is time to return control of these documents and the overall conduct process to the shared governance bodies.
