Abstract: This resolution addresses the administration’s failure to recognize the Campus Codes Committee’s oversight role in the process of reviewing and revising the Student Code of Conduct.
Sponsored by: Paul Nadasdy
Reviewed by: Campus Codes Committee, 12/10/2025
Whereas, in 1970, the Board of Trustees acted with strong community support to delegate to the University Senate (and later the UA, one of its successors) jurisdiction over a Campus Code of Conduct and the campus judicial system.
Whereas, the UA Bylaws formerly established a Codes and Judicial Committee to consider changes to the Code and the process for selection of the University Hearing Board and University Review Board. The UA formerly participated in the selection of the Judicial Administrator to assure that office’s independence from the central administration.
Whereas, this shared governance strategy operated successfully for nearly 50 years, during a period of significant growth and shared prosperity of the Cornell community.
Whereas, a prolonged effort was made to revise the Code beginning with the Presidency of Martha Pollack in 2017, which progressed into 2020 with significant disagreement between constituent parties and the administration. UA Resolution 8 from 2020 established two versions of the Revised Code were submitted to the University Council for combination: one from the CJC and one from the Student Advocate Office. The resolution called for the University Council office to “to review the two versions and find a fair and equitable approach to use the most appropriate elements from the two drafts in producing the new Code of Conduct.”
Whereas, UA Resolution 8 from 2020 further resolved that “the final version of the Code of Conduct from the University Counsel return to the University Assembly for review and response during the Fall 2020 semester prior to the Board of Trustees Meeting in October 2020.”
Whereas, President Pollack accepted this resolution and further affirmed “I will look forward to reviewing the feedback from the robust Cornell community comment period established by the resolution before returning the final version to the UA for review and response in the Fall and ultimately to the Board of Trustees in October.”
Whereas, the returned Revised version of the Campus Code eliminated oversight roles of the University Assembly, including 1) editing of the Code, 2) participation in approval of the administrator in charge of implementing the Code, and 3) ability to appoint members of the conduct Hearing Panels. This version was subject to limited public comment and not approved by the UA. It was then approved by the Board of Trustees in December 2020.
Whereas, in 2023 a protracted negotiation between Central Administration and the University Assembly resulted in the approval of UA Resolution 6 rewriting UA bylaws to formally remove jurisdiction of the UA over revisions to the Student Code of Conduct, Appointment of Hearing Board members, and consent over the office responsible for implementing the Code (https://assembly.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/ua_minutes_02.07.23.pdf).
Whereas, the intervening period since the adoption of the Revised Code has resulted in delays in Hearings, potential conflict of interests in the complainant procedures, and concerns of undue pretrial burdens on defendants, all of which are beneficial for community stability to receive independent review by broad stakeholders.
Whereas, Student and Campus Life’s student code of conduct review and revision process, presented in August 2025 does not recognize a governance role for the University Assembly or the Campus Codes Committee.
Whereas, the University Assembly retains the responsibility to receive regular reports and data from the OSCSC regarding the implementation of the Code, and OSCSC is required to deliver such reports.
Whereas, the Campus Codes Committee is charged with the following responsibilities:
By delegation from the University Assembly, the Campus Codes Committee will review any proposed motion related to:
- The Student Code of Conduct; and
- Solicitation of applications from interested faculty, students and staff for service on the University Hearing and Review Boards as specified in section “II C” of the Cornell Student Code of Conduct Procedures; and
- Issues involving academic freedom and freedom of speech for all members of the Cornell University community, including faculty, students, and staff on the Ithaca campus and those located outside the United States.
The Committee may propose, review, and amend resolutions as it deems appropriate. The Committee must approve resolutions referred for its consideration before they can be advanced to the Assembly for a vote and for debate;
Whereas, the Campus Codes Committee’s mandate includes reviewing proposed motions related to the Student Code of Conduct.
Be it further resolved, that the Code and Procedures Review Committee (CPRC) shall give full consideration to proposed revisions from the Campus Codes Committee.
Be it finally resolved, that the UA and the Campus Codes Committee shall have a formal role in appointing the chair of the Office of Student Code of Conduct and Community Standards or whatever office succeeds it.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Nadasdy
Campus Codes Committee
