Abstract: This resolution addresses proposed changes to the student code of conduct, and communicates the sense of the University Assembly that revisions to the Code should provide greater protections for students in the use of temporary or emergency suspensions, greater independence of the process from central administration, and retain a clear and convincing standard of proof. The resolution is addressed to the President and the Code and Procedures Review Committee (CPRC), whose final recommendations will be submitted during a period of public comment.
Sponsored by: David Bateman
Reviewed by: Campus Codes Committee, 12/10/2025
Whereas, the December 2024 report of the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity (CCEA) expressed “dismay … that the normal disciplinary process often takes four to six months or longer to complete” during which time students subject to “interim suspension” are barred from campus before a full investigation and finding of fact,” as well as “concerns about temporary suspensions being used punitively” and “accounts of severe temporary suspensions being issued to students for non-violent conduct, without adequate due process”.
Whereas, the CCEA recommended narrowing when temporary suspensions are used, requiring evidence that forms the basis for such suspensions to be shared with the student as in the normal disciplinary process, considering hardships to suspended community members, and a process for reviewing appeals adjudication that is “conducted rapidly (within two to three days)” and “independent of the regular administrative apparatus for suspension”.
Whereas, the CCEA recommended that any use of temporary suspensions “remain protective rather than punitive,” and be “imposed only when they are required on their own merits” and never “threatened in the expectation that a student would agree to conditions to which they would otherwise not be subject”.
Whereas, Chapter VIII Title A of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures allows temporary suspensions to be imposed only when “immediate action is necessary to protect the Complainant or the University community,” and stipulates that “since the underlying allegation of prohibited conduct has not yet been adjudicated on the merits, a Temporary Suspension may be imposed only when available less restrictive measures are reasonably deemed insufficient” to ensure this protection.
Whereas, testimony to the CCEA as well presentations to the Faculty Senate have suggested several procedural irregularities in the use of temporary suspensions and alternative resolutions.
Whereas, the history of Cornell’s Code of Conduct and Student Code demonstrate a persistent commitment that disciplinary proceedings should serve a primarily educational function, and so should be independent as far as feasible from central administration.
Whereas, student participation in previous revisions to the Code of Conduct led to a firm commitment to the “clear and convincing” standard of proof rather than the “preponderance of the evidence,” so long as compatible with existing law.
Whereas, the CPRC has recently proposed revisions to the Student Code, which are now open to community discussion before a final set of revisions are implement.
Whereas, the proposed revisions from the CPRC recognize the need for reforms to the temporary suspension process and provide a valuable foundation for further improvements, including a new appeal process and the requirement for reapplication at the beginning of a new semester; but do not require resolution or reapplication in a sufficiently timely manner to prevent their abuse, given the high stakes of suspension, nor establish an appeals body independent from central administration.
Whereas, the proposed revisions from the CPRC do not suggest changes in the standard of proof required.
Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures should be revised to ensure fairness and due process in administering the Code, including the restricted application of “temporary suspension” or “emergency suspension” provisions, avoidance of delays, and evenhandedness in enforcement measures.
Be it further resolved, that the independence of the application and enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct from the influence of the central administration should be increased, especially when the administration is the complainant.
Be it further resolved, that in order for temporary or emergency suspensions to be limited to their intended use, and that the purpose of that use must be protective rather than punitive, the code should be revised to: limit the use of temporary or emergency suspensions; to limit their application to 30 days, after which the suspension is lifted unless and until a finding of responsibility is made through an expedited hearing process or review and reapplication by a panel independent of central administration, including faculty, students, and staff.
Be it further resolved, that in order for the Code’s requirement that temporary suspensions be “imposed only when available less restrictive measures are reasonably deemed insufficient” be realized, reforms that would expand the options for less restrictive measures and develop procedures for their use while reinforcing the due process protections for students should be adopted, including tailoring the severity of interim sanctions to the level of process protections and evidence afforded students.
Be it further resolved, that in order any ambiguity about when temporary suspensions might be authorized, the reforms should include a clear and narrow description of situations meriting temporary suspensions, that this description be exhaustive.
Be it further resolved, that the Code should reform use of alternative resolutions to ensure that they are voluntary and to expand the use of meaningful restorative justice approaches.
Be it further resolved, that reforms be considered that would increase faculty, student, staff participation and awareness of student code of conduct proceedings, including the possibility of reforms equivalent to “jury duty.”
Be it further resolved, under no circumstances should the adjudicator of an appeal also be the complainant.
Be it further resolved, that the “clear and convincing” standard be maintained, unless existing law requires the use of a different standard; that any use of a lower standard for student organizations should be discontinued or be accompanied by lowered sanctions.
Be it finally resolved, that these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the University and to Code and Procedures Review Committee during the public comment period and incorporated into the final recommendations.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Bateman
Campus Codes Committee
