After 10 months of debate and controversy surrounding discrimination and freedom of expression on campus, the University Assembly voted yesterday to include a disputed clause in the Campus Code of Conduct that will change the face of student speech.

Clause for debate: Sylvia Zhang grad discusses changes to the Campus Code of Conduct. The approved clause will change the way campus deals with discrimination.This non-discrimination clause, which passed 7-3, is the U.A.’s second attempt to include language about discrimination in the student code. The first draft of the clause was approved by the U.A. last April, but President Skorton insisted that it be clarified to include protection for freedom of speech, association and religion. The U.A. retracted this clause in October, opting to draft the new one that better reflects University policy.

“After reviewing other campus codes at other institutions, [we found that] there’s a way you can word a non-discrimination clause that can make it applicable to everybody, and that’s what we went for in this resolution,” Andrew Brokman ‘11, Student Assembly liason to the U.A., said. “The language we used in terms of classes of people who are protected mirrors University policy ... we made the language so that any harassment based on being a member of these protected classes to the extent that it’s severe and pervasive should be deemed against the Campus Code of Conduct.”

These protected classes include age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious association and weight, among many others. Such specifications were not included in last April’s clause.

Since the U.A. cannot interfere with individual organizations, the clause would have had no effect on last year’s controversy surrounding Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship that raised the question of a non-discrimination clause in the first place — when Chris Donohoe ’09 was asked to step down from his leadership position in Chi Alpha after openly accepting his homosexuality.

Yet Brokman, who was appointed an at-large representative to the S.A. last week, remained optimistic that the S.A. would pass a resolution today dealing with discrimination in individual organizations.

Still, the resolution to adopt the clause generated much dialogue. According to John Cetta ’10, student representative to the U.A., the resolution is too broad and could lead to problems.

“There are numerous cases where poorly-worded resolutions have had severe effects at peer institutions,” said Cetta. “The fact is that [the resolution] lacks any objective standard ... All these things create a perfect storm.”

Prof. Ellis Loew, biomedical sciences, also expressed concerns about how the resolution would hold up in practice.

“If one student feels they have been harassed, they are going to make a stink about it,” Loew said. “I want to see what happens if someone is accused of this — how this is going to be adjudicated.”

Cetta agreed.

“Unless you have some sort of objective standard [for discrimination], someone can say, ‘I was offended,’ no matter how silly or misconstrued it may have been,” Cetta said.

However, despite some dissent, Brokman was confident that the resolution would affect positive campus change.

“I think it puts people on notice that if you harass someone ... then there will be consequences,” Brokman said. “I think that this resolution helps foster Cornell’s mission to provide a safe learning environment to all students.”

The UA unanimously passed three other resolutions. The first called for a simplification of the charter amendment procedures. Currently, such referendums require twenty percent voter turnout for each constituency. The new resolution would simplify the amendment process, keeping it more in line with how other Cornell assemblies make amendments.

The second resolution added greater discretion in Campus Code of Conduct sentencing, changing the maximum suspension time from one year to five years. According to John Cetta, there are times when longer suspensions are needed, particularly if the conflict involves a specific individual whose graduation would alleviate the conflict.

The third called for sustainability initiatives in the University’s Strategic Plan.