Back on Sept. 27, in what feels like several lifetimes ago, I penned a column for the Sun entitled “The Campus Code: Double Whammy!” concerning the newly proposed Campus Code of Conduct. At the time, I felt (and still do) that many of the provisions in the Code were loosely worded, had disingenuous motives, and did not provide adequate protections to the accused.
This time, the proposed Campus Code of Conduct has again hit the pages of The Sun — but for entirely the wrong reasons. As reported by The Sun’s very own Donial Dastgir ’10 on Feb. 14: “The University Assembly yesterday held an emergency meeting to discuss actions in response to an evaluation from President David Skorton on the Campus Code of Conduct, which had been revised by the Codes and Judicial Committee. In his critique, Skorton offered several changes to the Code, some of which were met with indignation and disappointment by members of the U.A.”
For those of you who do not know, the U.A., composed of representatives from the Cornell faculty, staff, graduates and undergraduates, is the chief legislative body in charge of the creation of the Campus Code of Conduct.
Believe me, the differences between Skorton and the U.A. are extremely complicated and cannot possibly be understood based upon one news article. But fortunately for me, the U.A. tape records all of its meetings. So, Sunday evening, I made myself a cup of hot tea, propped my feet up and listened with great enthusiasm to the ninety-or-so minute meeting.
Basically, here’s what happened: the U.A., in conjunction with A LOT of outside help, worked really hard to create a satisfactory and well-thought out Campus Code of Conduct. As I understand it, they then sent the proposed Code to President Skorton who had thirty days to either accept or reject the changes. Skorton tardily sent back what essentially amounted to line-by-line changes to the Code.
From the tone of the meeting, it seems as though the U.A. felt it should have the legislative authority to ultimately control the destiny of the Code and that President Skorton overstepped his bounds.
Was this a petty power struggle in the Great Big Red Bureaucratic Machine that is Cornell? Or do students and faculty at the University have cause for concern? To divine the answer, I dove into Skorton’s recommended changes. There are a lot but I’ll give some of the highlights. For instance, Skorton wants the standard of guilt, “clear and convincing evidence,” to be clarified. Understandable. Now, I’m no big city lawyer, but to my understanding, “clear and convincing” is the highest standard of evidence that can be applied to a criminal case. Perhaps the new Campus Code is supposed to lay out the foundations for a Big Red legal system.
Here’s another. The U.A. proposed that students brought before a judicial hearing be allowed to have access to attorneys. Skorton rejected this, stating that students should not have access to lawyers under the Campus Code of Conduct because they would not have that access if they had violated the Code of Academic Integrity. But without a lawyer you can’t possibly defend yourself against the University, which is essential to any fair legal system. By Skorton’s logic, you are guilty as charged, which is as American as French toast.
In another case, the U.A. proposed that if a student is charged in a criminal court, the J.A. should consider deferring its decision until the U.S. legal system has decided on the student’s innocence. Skorton rejected this, saying, “The University cannot cede or defer to external agencies or proceedings when its own principles are at stake.” I wonder who is better equipped to decide innocence: law school educated judges and a panel of one’s own peers — or the J.A.? Ironically, in his letter to the U.A., Skorton said that his changes would be more sensitive to situations like the Duke Lacrosse one. Yet it was partially an overzealous university system that created that mess in the first place.
Skorton also recommends that he, and not an appropriate judicial board, be able to make decisions on students charged with violating the Code. The end result of his changes is to concentrate judicial power in his hands, at the expense of the other governing bodies of the University and to the detriment of the student’s ability to defend his or herself. I am always wary of concentrating power in one person, no matter how fair-minded that person might appear to be.
Ultimately, I must side with the U.A. Sure, I may not agree with a lot of what they produced, but I can still respect and recognize their due diligence in this whole process. The U.A. is composed of our peers and professors. I believe that they understand the concerns of the members of the University. Based upon what I heard of their meeting, they take their roles as members of the U.A. seriously and, with them, we get at least some measure of due process. By contrast, Skorton, as the president of the University, is by necessity distant from the student body. How can he possibly better understand the issues important to the individuals of the University than its students or than U.A. Faculty Chair Professor Martin Hatch, who has taught at Cornell for over twenty-five years?
The members of the U.A. work extremely hard. We have the U.A., now let it do its job. If it is only a symbol and serves no purpose then disband it so that it is clear where the policies that affect the University on a day-to-day basis are coming from.
In much lighter news, I am happy to say that my sources in the SMC have informed that the budget for club sports has been increased for next year and that IFC procedures have changed so that rulings made by the IFC president made during rush week are now appealable. My sources also claim that my articles did not influence the decision making processes of either organization and that, truly, my opinion mattered not.
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 Tuesdays this semester.
Links:
[1] mailto:gwolfe@cornellsun.com