GUEST ROOM | Cornell Should Not Lower the Standard of Evidence in the Campus Code of Conduct

The University Assembly is deliberating a proposal to amend the Campus Code of Conduct to lower the standard of evidence required to find students responsible for a Code violation. The proposal would lower the standard from “clear and convincing” to a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” which is commonly understood as ‘probably.’ Such a change — if you are a student — will increase your likelihood of being found responsible for a Code violation. Simply put, this is a bad idea. Especially right now. It is inappropriate to fundamentally rebalance the power the Campus Code of Conduct grants to the Judicial Administrator while students are not on the campus.

GROSKAUFMANIS | Land of Second Chances

Two years ago, while sitting on a roof in Collegetown, I saw a girl run barefoot down Catherine Street holding an open handle of Absolut while zig-zagging away from a cop who, from my vantage point, was palpably frustrated but remarkably patient. I couldn’t see what happened when they reached the bottom of the hill, or if the girl — probably drunk and potentially underaged — got into any kind of trouble. But if she did, it was probably a muted version of the kind of punishment one might receive outside this unusual land of second chances. Relative to other places, there seems to be little consequence for “bad behavior” at Cornell. Sure, on any given weekend in Collegetown you may see an officer lecturing a freshman about an open container or someone being written up for peeing in public, but for the most part, illegal behavior here — in this uniquely privileged, unusually wealthy bubble we live in — seems to happen with near impunity.

EDITORIAL: In Defense of Mitch McBride

When The Sun published the AFAWG documents, it did so in the interest of transparency. As an independent news organization, it is incumbent on us to report issues and stories important to and affecting the Cornell and broader Ithaca community, such as the proposed changes to Cornell’s admissions policy. It is unfortunate that such discussions were taking place behind closed doors with such limited input from the Cornell student body — had the proceedings been more transparent, leaks would not have been necessary.