If you happen to be in Willard Straight at 4 p.m. today, you may witness a very rare occurrence at Cornell. For once, a dialogue is happening on this campus that has the potential to be both open and constructive. The forum, which will take place in the Memorial Room, is the first chance this semester for students to publicly react to proposed changes to the Campus Code of Conduct. The list of suggested modifications known as the Krause Report, after its author Barbara Krause, are characterized by vague language and near disregard for the accused.
First, I hope you’re not too attached to that pesky right to remain silent. According to the proposed revisions, the phrase is apparently “not appropriate for campus proceedings.” Thus, a method of self-defense that is afforded child molesters and murderers is not appropriate for a drunk eighteen-year-old scared to death of getting sent to the J.A.
At least the eighteen-year-old will have the ability to have an attorney at his hearing who will properly defend his client’s action, right? Wrong. In phrasing reminiscent of recent discussions involving enemy combatants, the accused is afforded an advisor at any stage. However, that advisor must be a member of the Cornell faculty, staff or student body and is not permitted to “participate actively” in the hearing. Thus, the recently sobered up yet terrified eighteen-year-old must now remember the coaching he received from someone who either doesn’t know him or doesn’t know the system or face possibly severe sanctions.
Interestingly, the Krause Report does not account for faculty members who happen to be attorneys. Are they disqualified from participating because they’re interested in judicial proceedings? The Report also fails to mention how accused students will know which members of the Cornell community will be willing and able to advise them. Maybe there could be a “So We Obviously Think You’re Guilty” J.A. workshop to get the advising done in one day.
As if these revisions weren’t enough, the Krause report seeks to do away with that pesky burden of evidence. The “clear and convincing” standard currently used for judicial administration proceedings would now drop to a simple “preponderance of evidence.” The reasoning behind this shift is that it puts the accuser and accused on more equal footing than the previous higher criterion. Doing so will, according to Ms. Krause’s report, “promote the community’s educational standard.” What better way to prepare students for the outside world than by educating them under different measures?
But, the Report says, “most campus judicial systems use this standard.” Good for them, but there’s a reason why none of us went to these other schools. Cornell is supposed to be better. It is supposed to train leaders. It is not supposed turn on its students and blame other schools for the idea.
Don’t think you’re getting off the hook because you live in Collegetown. Whereas the current system limits off-campus jurisdiction to only the gravest circumstances, the new system would allow allegations “if the misconduct poses a direct and substantial threat to the educational mission of Cornell” or to its members.
Yet, as the Report notes, the new wording does not properly designate the potential scope and reach of the new Code of Conduct nor does it adequately specify what types of acts constitute “direct and substantial” threats. If the requirement is in response to calls from organizations such as the Women's Resource Center for better care for sexual assault victims, then provide better services for the accuser as well as the accused. Furthermore, how would the school be notified of off-campus infractions? This provision creates the very high possibility that a student cited by the Ithaca Police in Collegetown for an infraction would be subject to more severe punishment than their classmate who committed the same act at home.
Not all college students in Ithaca go to Cornell, and the right of an accused to withhold information would make working with the IPD on the matter much more difficult.
Luckily, there are multiple avenues in which to express your displeasure at these possible measures. The meeting today is a tremendous way to visually show the administration your opposition to the Report; however, it is not the only way. If you can’t make the meeting, or if last night’s Super Bowl left you wiped out, post your comments on the Krause Report’s website at assembly.cornell.edu/KrauseReportComments/home. At the very least, the thoughtful dissents (and I have yet to see a piece of positive feedback) and criticisms posted on the website will make you proud to share a campus with such intellectuals and pragmatists.
Cornell prides itself on its ability to evolve and create a mature environment. Yet change for the sake of change is self-defeating, as sometimes the most important mark of a leader is knowing when to keep things the way they are.
CORRECTION: In my last column, I incorrectly attributed a quote to Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. The phrase was actually from a 1972 memorandum from Justice Blackmun regarding the case, with the quote stating, “You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.” I sincerely regret the error.