SA R10 (2025-2026): Condemning the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance

Acknowledged by the President

• Resolution:
  SA R10 (2025-2026): Condemning the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance
• Day:
  February 2, 2026
• Action:
  Acknowledged by the President
• Summary / Notes:

  Dear Zora,

  Thank you for conveying SA R10: Condemning the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance and Fall 2025 Undergraduate Student Assembly Referendum. The SA’s interest in the Student Code of Conduct (SCC) review process and potential revisions is understandable and appreciated. I write to provide clarification regarding the origins of the SCC, the legal and governance framework under which it operates, and the processes used for its ongoing review and revision.

  Origins and Purpose of the Student Code of Conduct

  The Student Code of Conduct was adopted by the Board of Trustees in December 2020 following a multi‑year process that began in 2017, when the University Assembly was asked to revise the Judicial Code by President Martha Pollack. After two years of discussions, but no progress toward a revised code, the University Assembly asked the administration to lead the code revision and thus began a collaborative process that included a report from the Presidential Task Force on Campus Climate as well as extensive consultation with campus constituencies, including the University Assembly and its Codes and Judicial Committee, the Undergraduate Student Assembly, the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, the Faculty Senate, Judicial Code Counselors (now known as Respondent Code Counselors), Complainants’ Advisors (now known as Complainant Code Counselors), and university administration.

  The SCC is a student‑focused code because, under the prior Campus Code nearly all complaints involved undergraduate students, and faculty and staff misconduct had been long governed by separate and well‑established disciplinary policies notwithstanding the prior Campus Code’s applicability to those constituent groups. The creation of a student‑specific code was intended to ensure clarity, consistency, and procedural appropriateness for student conduct matters.

  Legal Authority and Governance Structure

  Under federal and state law, the University—not individual constituencies or governance bodies—bears responsibility for adopting and administering policies necessary to provide a safe and appropriate educational environment. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for, and retains authority over, the SCC and its Procedures, and has acted to align responsibility for Cornell’s legal obligations with the authority to administer the SCC. The current structure was intentionally adopted to align authority with legal accountability, and allows the University to assure the University’s ability to respond in a timely way when SCC changes are required.

  The Board delegated day‑to‑day administration of the SCC to the Vice President for Student and Campus Life (VPSCL). As part of that delegation, the VPSCL, or their designee, chairs and convenes the Code and Procedures Review Committee (CPRC), whose role is to review potential amendments and provide advisory input. The CPRC does not have the authority to revise the SCC and does not include voting members; rather, it serves as a consultative body whose feedback is considered by the administration.

  Under the SCC Procedures, authority to revise the Code lies with the President, following review of input from the CPRC, the assemblies, and the broader Cornell community. As specified in the Procedures, all proposed revisions are shared with the assemblies and the community for comment before any action is taken by the President. In this case, I have stated on multiple occasions that the process of revision will include input from all of the shared governance bodies on any proposed changes to the Code.

  Role of the Assemblies and Community Participation

  The assemblies play an important and ongoing role in the governance system. They are explicitly empowered to submit proposed revisions to the CPRC for consideration. To date, the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly has exercised this authority by submitting specific proposed changes, which have been shared with the VPSCL and will be reviewed through established processes.

  Students, faculty, and staff also participate directly in the conduct system through service on University Hearing and Review Board (UHRB), which are responsible for determining responsibility and imposing sanctions when a case goes to a Hearing. These boards are essential to the functioning and legitimacy of the system, and there is a continuing need for volunteers to serve in these roles, at present more faculty members are needed. Specifically, it is the role of the University Assembly (and other assemblies) to solicit applications from students, faculty, and staff to serve on the UHRB and submit them to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. 

  The SCC has been in effect since September 2021 and, until spring 2024, operated largely without significant campus concern. During that period, the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards resolved most referrals efficiently, with more extensive procedures used in a smaller number of contested cases. OSCCS remains committed to improving efficiency wherever possible while preserving fairness and due process.

  Recent Concerns and Current Review

  Recent attention to the SCC arose during a period of heightened campus protest activity. Some issues raised during that time have already been addressed through the adoption of the Expressive Activities Policy, which applies consistently to students, faculty, and staff. The CPRC is currently considering additional issues, including potential revisions to improve the timeliness of case adjudication and to provisions governing temporary suspensions.

  We recognize that governance processes benefit from broad participation and shared understanding. At the same time, it is important that the review process for the current academic year move forward as designed, as altering the review would violate the process embedded in the Code and delay the implementation of necessary changes. The VPSCL will continue to work through SA and GPSA representation on the CPRC in future academic years.

  Closing

   

  We appreciate the continued engagement of the Student Assembly in matters of student conduct and campus climate. The SCC was created through extensive consultation, and its review and revision continue to rely on input from across the community within the framework established by the Board of Trustees. We look forward to your engagement in the listening sessions and public comment phase of the review as we collectively work to ensure a fair, effective, and educational conduct system for all students.

  Sincerely,

  Michael Kotlikoff

  Michael Kotlikoff, V.M.D., Ph.D., Sc.D. (h.c.)

  President and Professor of Molecular Physiology

  Cornell University

   

• File Attachments:
• Text Attachment: