On April 23, 2024, the University Assembly met to consider two resolutions prompted by the Interim Expressive Activity Policy. This policy regulates the time, place and manner of protests on campus.
Background
Prior to 1970, the faculty had exclusive control over campus codes of conduct and over the campus judicial system to determine whether students had violated the codes. However, students were allowed to serve on the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs and on the hearing panels.
In 1970, the Board of Trustees moved jurisdiction over the codes and judicial system from the faculty to a joint student-faculty-employee University Senate. Later, the University Assembly replaced the Senate and continued this responsibility until December 10, 2020.
At that time, the Trustees removed UA jurisdiction over a new Student Code of Conduct which it delegated to Ryan Lombardi, Vice President of Student and Campus Life. All of the detailed time, place and manner provisions of the Campus Code of Conduct were thrown into limbo.
Due to the fact that keeping order on campus was so difficult in the 1970s, the body of precedents developed under the Campus Code did provide for severe punishment for dangerous and highly disruptive activities, such as an extended building takeover or bringing guns onto campus.
Dean of Student Marla Love had argued that the old system–although fair and applied without discrimination–should be replaced with a new system that emphasized education over deterrence and mediation between a complaining witness and the respondent. In fact, the new rules required the hearing panel members to undergo diversity equity and inclusion training.
On October 7, Hamas invaded the bordering areas of Israel, and many campuses around the nation erupted with protests and political activism. Unlike most of the prior decades, this crisis divided the political left between a pro-Palestine and a pro-Israel camp, represented two historically “oppressed” causes.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives called many witnesses to testify about the political crisis, and the Presidents of Penn and Harvard subsequently resigned. The House Ways and Means Committee sent Cornell a letter with responses due on January 28 asking about what rules Cornell had in place to regulate protests.
Day Hall then picked up the old Campus Code of Conduct, made some more controversial changes to it, and sent it to Washington. President Pollack claimed it was only an interim measure and would seek input from the University Assembly (UA) and other shared governance bodies.
All segments of the campus community erupted over the “Interim Expressive Activity Policy” and declared it to be illegitimate. The UA collected and summarized many comments received, and the Faculty Senate passed a resolution condemning the policy.
Although the formulation of such policies was historically within the scope of the UA, the Administration claimed any changes to the policy would be handled by the University Policy Office (UPO). As a compromise, Day Hall agreed that a new policy would be drafted by a new Committee representing all of the shared governance bodies over the summer.
Policy Making Reform
The UA adopted two new resolutions at its April 23 meeting. The first entitled “Enhancing Constituency Representation in Policy-Making” addresses how the UPO should work with shared governance groups going into the future. Prior to the UA meeting, the draft specified that when the UPO set up a committee to review a particular policy, one of the “community-elected trustees” (e.g., the undergraduate and graduate student trustees, the employee trustee or the two faculty trustees) should be a voting member of the committee. During the meeting, the UA voted to change this to a person designated by the UA to be placed on each committee. The Chair of the UA would also be informed twice per year of all ongoing UPO activities.
The draft also provided an annual audit by the UA of the UPO and its committees “to assess the effectiveness of UA and constituency involvement in policy making and to make adjustments as necessary to improve collaboration and policy outcomes.” However, the UA changed this to provide an annual report due on January 31 of each year prepared by the UA, UPO and the Ombuds. The revised resolution was adopted in order to integrate the UPO with the shared governing bodies’ roles in policy making.
Expressive Activities and Protests
The Interim Expressive Activity Policy has been considered at each UA meeting since February, including a meeting with Cornell’s VP and General Counsel Donica Thomas Varner. A resolution was adopted by a 7-1-2 vote asking Day Hall to “Acknowledge that the process by which the Interim Expressive Activity Policy was created and amended was flawed, lacking in comprehensive community engagement and transparency.” A full set of the comments received by the UA or on the Assembly website were attached to the resolution. The UA also debated whether to “roll back” all disciplinary actions taken under the policy.
President Pollack has 30 days to accept or veto either resolution.
