I am appalled by the University administration’s treatment of Momodou Taal. Not only is the threat of suspension unduly harsh, the process that has led to that decision bears no resemblance to our customary university procedures designed to protect students from unfair findings and penalties. Such actions violate his academic freedom, the university’s obligation to treat all students fairly, and widespread practices of basic fairness.
I’m well acquainted with Cornell’s usual adherence to due process. For two years, I served on Cornell’s Academic Integrity Hearing Board as a representative for Arts & Sciences. The process represents the University’s good-faith efforts to offer students ample time and opportunities to examine evidence, as well as dispute findings of guilt and punishments for such findings. During my time on the board, this is how we operated:
- If a faculty member charges a student with an academic-integrity violation, the student is given at least a week’s notice for a meeting which takes place at a mutually agreed upon time. At the primary hearing, which includes the faculty member, the student and an independent witness, the faculty member presents the charge and the evidence of the violation and the student is invited to respond. The student can present evidence and their own witnesses, accompanied by an advisor if they so choose.
- If the faculty member finds the student guilty, the student can appeal to the Academic Integrity Hearing Board, a panel comprised of two students and two faculty members. Again, the process is evidence-based, transparent and fair. The student can present evidence and witnesses, accompanied by an advisor if they so choose. The Board does not take the faculty member at their word but examines the evidence presented by both parties. The Board can affirm or overturn a finding of guilt; it can recommend but not dictate alternate punishments.
- If the Board affirms the finding of guilt, the student has four weeks to appeal guilty findings or punishments to their dean. The dean can deny the appeal or refer the case back to the Board if they find violations in procedure; they can recommend a lesser grade punishment or “modify or decline” a non-grade punishment.
Students have multiple opportunities and ample time to appeal because the stakes are so high: violations of academic integrity can put a student’s future at enormous risk, so the University must be as thorough and conscientious as possible. Faculty and hearing boards can make mistakes; students shouldn’t be punished for those mistakes under any circumstances.
Contrast that process to the administration’s treatment of Taal: He strongly disputes the University’s version of events, but the administration has moved very quickly with no opportunity for Taal to see evidence against him, present his own evidence or meaningfully challenge the accusation against him. The lack of transparency and evidence-based judgments in the disciplinary process falls short of Cornell’s standards. Instead of an independent Board, Taal is facing the Administration, which is the complainant, as well as the “jury, judge, and executioner” as the Sun editorial puts it. The Academic Integrity Hearing Board is an independent body that includes both faculty and students in order to provide oversight; the administration refuses to offer him any such fairness.
If the University suspends Taal, his F-1 student visa will be revoked and he will be deported. After that, his academic career is likely to be deeply compromised. (The administration may claim that they are not deporting Taal, but they know the consequences of their decision.) Like every student at Cornell—like everyone—Taal deserves every opportunity to appeal the University’s decision and to be judged fairly and independently.
Interim President Michael Kotlikoff recently reiterated his intention to follow a policy of institutional neutrality regarding political issues. Ironically, and sadly, Cornell’s treatment of Taal makes a profound, disturbing political statement: due process, academic freedom and individual freedoms are inessential here. If those rights are inessential, then Cornell has ceased being a University in its most fundamental sense.
Charlie Green is a professor in the Department of Literatures in English. He previously served on Cornell’s Academic Integrity Hearing Board as a representative for Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: [email protected].