Proposed resolution: Resolution Restating Faculty Senate Concerns about the Process through which the Student Code of Conduct Is Being Revised.”
Posted: May 4, 2026
Whereas the Faculty Senate passed a resolution last November concerning the process through which the Student Code of Conduct is being revised by the overwhelming vote of 80 to 16 ( Resolution 209 concerning overuse of temporary suspensions – Office of the Dean of Faculty ). ;
Whereas the Cornell administration has now recommended revisions of the Student Code of Conduct that do not address the most important concerns that the Faculty Senate and the other Assemblies raised in their respective resolutions;
Whereas the resolution passed last November by the Faculty Senate demanded that adjudication of the Student Code of Conduct be placed in an authority independent of the central administration and that the Code itself be revised by a democratically elected committee
Whereas the revision of the Code proposed by the central administration recognizes neither of these demands.
Be it resolved that the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures should be revised to ensure fairness and due process in administering the Code, including the restricted application of “temporary suspension” provisions, avoidance of delays, and evenhandedness in enforcement and adjudication;
Be it further resolved that the current Code and Procedures Review Committee (CPRC) convened by the Vice President of Student and Campus Life to revise the Code should be replaced by a more representative and democratically elected committee;
Be it further resolved that the faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, and employee members of the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be elected by the Faculty Senate, the Student Assembly, the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, and the Employee Assembly, respectively, and that the University Assembly, the CGSU-UE, and the Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors should each elect an additional member of the Code and Procedures Review Committee;
Be it further resolved that any representatives appointed by the central administration and the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards should be ex officio, non-voting advisory members of the CPRC;
Be it finally resolved that one of the goals of this democratically elected committee should be to place administration of the Student Code of Conduct in the hands of an institutional authority independent of the central administration.
Sponsors
Faculty Senators:
Oumar Ba
Richard Bensel
Anne Marie Elizabeth Brady
Harold Hodes
Andrew Yen
Faculty:
Begum Adalet
David Bateman
Derek Chang
Ileen DeVault
Shimon Edelman
Shannon Gleeson
Dan Hirschman
Saida Hodzic
Joseph Margulies
Paul Nadasdy
Ken Roberts
Nerissa Russell
Lindsay C. Thomas
Retired Faculty:
Kate Bronfenbrenner
Matt Evangelista
One thought on "Proposed resolution: Resolution Restating Faculty Senate Concerns about the Process through which the Student Code of Conduct Is Being Revised.”"
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We have received several emails about this resolution – this continues to be concerning, given the non-transparent nature of such communications when this forum is available to us. However – these emails remind us of how overwhelming the vote for the previous resolution was. It is worth remembering that the previous resolution garnered support through misinformation – the supporters claimed, for example, that previous committees to review and revise parts of the campus code had been democratically elected, when in fact they were nominated and selected. Those committees did an excellent job, as the current committee has done to date. The emails also fail to state the hesitation with which many people voted ‘yes’ – feeling that it was an imperfect resolution, but a step in the right direction. This is crucial to understanding that ‘overwhelming’ vote of 80 to 16 – many of the 80 felt the resolution went too far, but felt it was marginally better than not passing it at all. We know this from the comments documented in our archives.
And it is true that the Cornell administration did not adopt the previous resolution. But it also remains true that they have shown a total dedication to shared faculty governance – they simply saw no reason to abandon a committee already invested in the issue, just to form a new one to do the same task.
We have had multiple opportunities to interact with that committee, discuss problems we have with the student code of conduct, and suggest revisions. Largely, we have squandered those opportunities – despite ample time to speak, few people have taken the stage to ask questions or state concerns. This is a choice each senator has made. Only one of the supporters and authors of this resolution chose to speak during the February interaction opportunity – one might make of that as one will.
The emails inform us that, by not bringing this to our May meeting, we are facing a “charade posing as “shared faculty governance.”” But in truth, this IS shared faculty governance – a committee of our peers was established, selecting people with the specialized knowledge and viewpoints necessary to make sound and informed decisions. These people (who are, again, our peers – they are our colleagues from across Cornell) came together and did the hard work of understanding what was wrong, and proposing viable alternatives. They came to the Senate to discuss their findings, and their progress. And we gave them (rather limited) feedback, which was incrementally incorporated.
That is shared governance. THIS is the charade – this continual stream of resolutions demanding censure, or demanding that in-progress work be abandoned. This insistence, in this specific case, that because the Senate did not vote on the members of the committee, they are somehow unqualified to complete the task they were assigned.
It is long past time to move past this issue, and move on to matters actually in need of a solution. At the very least, the committee has nearly completed its work – it is utterly pointless to continue spending time talking about process, instead of engaging with the meat of the student code.