The Campus Code: Double Whammy!

Cornell, for an institution that has to manage nearly 20,000 students, does a remarkable job in a lot of areas. The education is first rate (as if I had to tell you that). The food, exquisite. And the campus always looks great. Yes, the Cornell decision-makers deserve many laudatory praises.

Yet, Cornell has certainly not been renowned for its undergraduate housing. Only about one-third of undergrads live on campus. Beyond freshman year, housing is not even guaranteed! On the other hand, many of Cornell’s peer (ahem, rival) schools, like Yale, Williams, Dartmouth and Brown, have a majority of their undergraduates living on campus. Most of these schools guarantee housing for at least two years (some for all four). The only major universities with housing policies similar to Cornell’s are located in big cities, like D.C.’s George Washington University. Students who live in urban areas have many living options, unlike at Cornell, where housing in Collegetown is limited and often far from ideal.

To rectify this problem, Cornell has poured over $100 million into creating a new West Campus living center for students beyond freshman year. Sure, the dorms may be ugly (I think that Alice Cook House looks like it could be in East Germany), but they are designed so that students choose not to live off-campus in fraternities and in Collegetown. Cornell is not investing over $100 million for kicks and giggles. To this end, short of making on campus living mandatory for sophomores, it behooves Cornell to make living off-campus less attractive. Anyone who lives in a fraternity can attest to the fact that Cornell is trying to weaken Greek life by making regulations more stringent and difficult to follow. One false step and there goes that operating permit; two and there goes the chapter.

Yet, there was seemingly little that Cornell could really do about privately-owned housing in Collegetown. After all, Collegetown is its own separate entity. Here, I believe that we can see the rationale for the Proposed Campus Code of Conduct. To summarize for those of you who have not read 40 pages of legal jargon, Cornell’s new proposal would mean that if you got in trouble with the real law, you would also have to face the consequences of Cornell law. Basically, in addition to going to court you will be forwarded to the J.A. Double whammy! Or perhaps double jeopardy? This has the potential to make Collegetown feel as though it is a part of the campus and discourage those whose main impetus for living off-campus is freedom from Cornell.

Ostensibly, Cornell’s enhanced judicial powers would only be used, according to its outline of the major issues, for extreme cases: “This is a significant change, but the thought is that the Code cannot ignore, say, a student committing rape in Collegetown.” I agree 100 percent; however, if a student is in fact convicted of rape in real U.S. court with a real lawyer representing him, I really do not think that student would be invited back to Cornell. As one student has commented on the online message board for this proposed change, “The vagueness of these guidelines leaves them open to abuse.” Yes, the guidelines are intentionally vague.

For instance, in addition to the admittedly major offenses that Cornell does list as being applicable to the University’s jurisdiction (see pages 20 to 21 of the code), it also lists disorderly conduct, including being too loud (did someone say noise violation?) and underage drinking as being in Cornell’s interest to prosecute. One of the potential violations reads, “[Students are prohibited] … to traffic, for profit or otherwise, in goods or services in a manner incompatible with the interests of the University community or local community.” What exactly does this statement mean? Clearly, it is open to interpretation. The Cornell judiciary is one without oversight, where one is basically guilty once accused. Who knows how they could potentially construe this, given the right circumstances.

The real purpose of this code is not to deal with major crimes, like rape, which the United States Court system is ably equipped to handle. Rather, it is to deal with the small offenses that can make life in Collegetown possibly more attractive than life on campus. In conclusion, I encourage the student body to voice your opinion about the proposed changes to the code through the University website. The Cornell judiciary process is so one-sided that students should be wary of giving the University the power to decide matters which belong in a real U.S. Court.

Gregory Wolfe is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at gwolfe@cornellsun.com [1]. It Matters Not, But... appears alternate Fridays.