MEHLER | Further Detailing Cornell’s Restorative Judicial System 

In an article last week, Avery Bower ’23 expressed his frustrations with my recent column on Cornell’s judicial system. Those who disagree with what I write are always entitled to disagree, however, they are not entitled to lie, misrepresent and blatantly mislead the public about what is fact and fiction. After reading that article, I believe that more details of Cornell’s judicial system would better help characterize how this system sits in Cornell’s organizational structure as well as what actually occurs in mediations. Opinion columns, such as my own, are not places for line-by-line breakdowns of opposing viewpoints, however, some sentences in response to my article are outright false; those lines will be unraveled. Despite false claims, shared governance’s role in Cornell’s judicial system is alive and well with the University Assembly’s Codes and Judicial Committee actively participating.  As someone who sits on the UA’s CJC Committee, I can tell you that we are still involved in the judicial process and recently passed a resolution clarifying and affirming our role in this process.