Regarding the final resolved clause beginning line #67 "Be it finally resolved, the administration and the University Assembly will consider revisions to the Code of Conduct and Policy 6.4 that reduce the standard of evidence for bias-related/hate crimes to be the same as the standard of evidence for sex/gender discrimination." I have had a convincing argument made against reducing the standard of evidence in a punitive system. It is essentially 'If we are going to seek retribution against the accused, we want to be very sure that they are guilty.' This is one of the many reasons I support a move towards a more educational, restorative system, which would result in 'We are pretty sure the accused is guilty, so we are going to help them learn to avoid making the mistake again.' Perhaps there is a means of utilizing the degree of evidence to inform the sanction, but that may be outside the scope of this resolution. What do you think?

While I will be unable to attend this meeting due to an academic conflict I agree with what Mr. Kruser's comment raised above in that the current system utilizes a higher standard of evidence to limit the risk of false positives among a number of other reasons (including a sense of fundamental fairness (e.g. innocent until demonstrated otherwise), concern over long-term effects of incorrect findings, an imbalance in the power and resources that the University can bring to bear against an individual, etc.) and that due to this complex interaction of issues, seeking a change in the standard of evidence is likely a more complex and nuanced topic that can be addressed in the three lines of this resolution.

I also note for the record that the Judicial Codes Counselor’s (those who represent individuals accused of an infraction) are strongly against lowering the standard of evidence.

Moving towards a more restorative and educational system is something the CJC is exceptionally interested in and is something we are actively pursuing alongside the Judicial Administrator's Office as the primary purpose of a University is educational. On this, the Judicial Administrator is currently piloting a course about responsible decision making and the CJC plans to examine incorporating restorative justice elements into the Code (where appropriate) to focus less on punitive outcomes and more on restorative ones.

Additionally, it is worth noting that new regulations promulgated by the Department of Education a few weeks ago also appear to muddy the field in terms of using mixed standards of evidence depending on the infraction an individual is accused of which adds an additional layer of complexity to this discussion.

I am also more than happy to meet and discuss this (or any other topic) further with any member of the Employee Assembly or Cornell Community.

Finally, in terms of the resolution as a whole, I wished to note my agreement and support of the condemnation of violent hate crimes and of those who commit such violent actions.