A. The Report of the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity. See in particular the recommendations concerning temporary suspensions on pages 11-13.

B. Report of Calder Lewis, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Lewis worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.

C. Report of Dalton Sousa, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Sousa worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.

Summary of CAPP review of “Resolution Concerning Overuse of Temporary Suspensions, Excessive Delays that Violate Due Process in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings, and the Need for Reform of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures.”

Tom Pepinsky (chair)

Overview

CAPP was asked to review the Faculty Senate’s resolution on temporary suspensions and related matters. As this resolution does not fall within scope of what CAPP has customarily reviewed in recent years, the CAPP chair corresponded with Dean of Faculty Eve de Rosa and other Faculty Senate members on process matters. All agreed that a normal CAPP review was appropriate, with CAPP members offering their feedback and suggestions to be shared with the Faculty Senate.

Summary of CAPP Review

CAPP members expressed a variety of positions on the resolution. The balance of

comments and feedback focused on the resolution’s tone, on the five recommendations, and on process and CAPP’s role in providing feedback on the proposal.

Feedback on the resolution’s tone was generally split between those who view the tone as antagonistic, and those who find the tone as critical but not inappropriately so.

Among those with reservations about the resolution’s tone, one exact phrase was “The tone of the entire Resolution is antagonistic towards the Administration,” and others suggested that the tone does not invite collaboration or meaningful dialogue with the administration.

The alternative perspective, offered by several CAPP members, is that resolution is written in a critical manner because that is its purpose, but that it does not feature excessively emotional language. There was a friendly request for quantitative evidence in support of the motivating premise of the “overuse” of temporary suspensions. Some CAPP members noted that the resolution reflects a sense among many members of the faculty that the administration has taken important decisions without representative faculty input. Additionally, members noted that the temporary suspensions had very significant effects on students who were subject to them, and amounted to severe punishments before any disciplinary procedures had even commenced.

There was some agreement—even among one member who did not object to the resolution’s tone—that the passage on viewpoint discrimination was not necessary to make sponsors’ points, and perhaps counterproductive. A more critical perspective, expressed and/or endorsed by a minority of CAPP members, was that invoking the pro-

Palestinian expressive activity was “itself a political point” and therefore “inappropriate.” In support of this passage’s inclusion, however, a CAPP member noted that this passage helps to explain the urgency of the current resolution, as has emerged in response to events in the world.

Although CAPP members views’ on the resolution’s tone vary, and there is no single position that summarizes them all, a common thread among many (but not all) is the suggestion that the resolution might be reworded to invite dialogue and collaboration with the administration. Relatedly, some CAPP members suggested that Faculty Senators consider carefully the language that they use when appealing to a broad audience, and to weigh the tradeoffs between an inclusively-worded resolution with broad support and a more targeted one that does not earn as much support.

Feedback on the five recommendations focused mainly but not exclusively on the fourth and fifth recommendations. The fourth and fifth recommendations currently read

• 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” provisions, avoidance of

delays, and evenhandedness in enforcement measures;

• Be it further resolved that the faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, and employee members of the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be elected by the Faculty Senate, the Student Assembly, and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, respectively, and that the University Assembly, the CGSU-UE, and the Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors should each elect an additional member of the Code and Procedures Review Committee;

Two suggestions how to amend them that emerged from the CAPP discussions are

• A recommendation to strike them entirely as “overly prescriptive,” instead

empowering the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) to revise the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures without additional constraints (they may adopt the last two recommendations, or not).

• Replace the fourth and fifth recommendations with a new recommendation that combines the fourth with the fifth, “Be it finally resolved that the Code and Procedures Review Committee should consider reforms that address issues including, but not limited to: limitations on the use of temporary suspensions and reforms of the appeals process, including those recommended in the CCEA report and by Respondents’ Codes Counselors (see Appendices B and C); the independence of the OSCCS, in its enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures, from the influence of the central administration, especially when the administration is the complainant; and reforming the use of alternative resolutions to ensure that they are voluntary and to expand the use of meaningful restorative justice approaches.”

CAPP members expressed some support for each of these suggestions, but no unanimous nor clear majority position emerged.

Separately, several members endorsed an amendment to the second recommendation, which currently reads

• Be it further resolved that the faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, and employee members of the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be elected by the Faculty Senate, the Student Assembly, and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, respectively, and that the University Assembly, the CGSU-UE, and the Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors should each elect an additional member of the Code and Procedures Review Committee;

The suggestion is to add “Employee Assembly” to this list of representative bodies that should be allowed to elect representatives to the Code and Procedures Review Committee.

A minority of CAPP members expressed more direct opposition to the resolution in its entirety. One suggested that the President and Provost should exercise their own

discretion in implementing temporary suspensions and are likely aware of the weighty consequences of issuing such suspensions, and that there are reasonable scenarios in which delaying a temporary suspension until the end of the due process procedure would allow students to engage in behavior without fear of consequence (e.g in the last week of their senior year). This member concluded that “The Resolution should be to request dialog with the administration on the topic, not just to issue demands.”

Feedback on the process broadly took the form of questions about why CAPP is offering feedback on this proposal at all. Several members found this unusual and/or

unexpected. Some expressed reservations about their knowledge of the facts of the matter, and as a result, concern about their ability to offer useful and reasoned feedback. Another asked why CAPP was vetting the resolution prior to its being brought before the Senate, given that this is not standard practice (in response, CAPP Chair summarized the process so far).

Separately, several CAPP members questioned why the resolution does not mention that the Student Code of Conduct is already being reviewed. This observation raised questions about how the proposed review would interact with the one already in progress. One possibility is that this resolution is meant to inform that Code and Procedures Review Committee, but CAPP members who took up this line of questioning noted their interest in further clarification on these matters.

Do you support the draft resolution titled, Resolution concerning overuse of temporary suspensions, excessive delays that violate due process in the conduct of disciplinary hearings, and the need for reform of the student code of conduct procedures?

80 Yes; 16 No; 15 Abstain; 24 DNV

Comments

This resolution is not about the treatment of any individual student or applying temporary suspension in cases of violent actors, but rather about revising the current procedures and policies in a way that recognizes the values of shared governance.

This was an excellent revision that now focuses on creating positive change

“Shared governance” has fallen out of favor with the central administration.  This resolution is a small step toward righting the balance.

I am not especially convinced that temporary suspensions are being misused currently. I find the data supporting those claims to be highly cherry picked. But the administration is revising policy, and has invited us to do the same, and that’s what this resolution will do at the end of the day.

I am abstaining on this resolution. I strongly support the principles behind it—fair and timely due process for students, appropriate use of temporary suspensions, and a transparent, representative approach to revising the Student Code of Conduct. These are values that matter a great deal to me.

However, the resolution as written feels one-sided in its presentation of the underlying cases, and the proposed plan for reform remains quite broad and vague. It identifies important problems but provides very little specificity about the solutions it envisions. For example, it does not outline:
-clear limits on temporary suspension use,
-defined due-process timelines,
-standards for appeals,
-definitions of imminent harm,
-standards of evidence,
-alternatives to suspension,
-considerations for visa-dependent students,
-guaranteed hearing timelines,
-restorative justice pathways, or
-guidance on when the administration can appropriately serve as complainant.

I would welcome a future version that continues to center fairness and due process but offers a more balanced presentation of facts and a clearer, more actionable set of reforms. I appreciate the intent of this work and look forward to contributing to a more detailed and constructive discussion as the process moves forward.

I trust the University’s decisions in these matters, and I think that the Faculty Senate has been talking about these issues for too long and wasting all of our time.

This is yet another resolution that claims to care about our students but instead achieves the opposite.

The administration has fundamentally failed to make Cornell a safe place for Israeli students to study and work. They allowed people to violate campus rules and took almost no action against the perpetrators.

Now, we are faced with a resolution that completely ignores the facts about the damage caused by the students who violated those rules. Instead, it argues as if the administration somehow abused its power. This is clearly a political resolution.

We urgently need a deep change in the Senate to ensure we protect our students against all the violence and harassment that they have been subjected to.

I do not think it crucial to enforce that members of this newly constituted CPRC who are from the central administration and/or the OSCCS be non-voting. For committees at this level there is rarely an actual “vote”, so making that distinction seems unnecessarily adversarial.

I think it makes sense to have one of the deans lead the committee (not from the Provost’s office).

This is a much stronger resolution than the resolution initially presented to the Senate at a meeting earlier in the fall.

The argument presented is that the academic probations under discussion are for non-violent offences. But (1) we are not provided with the evidence to evaluate this claim, and (2) in any case this is not a sufficient excuse. We have the privilege of being in community at this phenomenal institution. It is not unreasonable to expect the level of conduct at a top tier university to rise above this baseline level. Harassment and bullying are non-violent offenses that deeply impact other community members. Depriving a Cornell student of a job opportunity by shutting down a career fair may be a non-violent offense but causes real life harm.
We are provided with decontextualized anecdotes and asked to believe the claims of faculty who consistently introduce resolutions that rest upon tendentious assertations. This is non-productive and wastes time at a time when research and scholarship are under intense scrutiny and threat. The faculty senate should be congratulating this Cornell administration and how well it is steering the university through unprecedented challenges and maintaining the commitment to free speech.

The CAPE Executive Committee feels that a more inclusive committee structure would benefit the discussion and outcome of the deliberations.

It is clear this needs to be addressed. Though this is not a perfect resolution it hits important parts of committee make up and modifying this process that is not meeting the needs it was designed to address.

Dear Eve,

Thank you for conveying Faculty Senate R209: Resolution Concerning Overuse of Temporary Suspensions,  Excessive Delays that Violate Due Process in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings, and the Need for Reform of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures. Interest in the Student Code of Conduct (SCC) review process and potential revisions is understandable and appreciated. We 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.

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.

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 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. As I recently stated in the Senate, proposed revisions will be shared with the Faculty Senate and the Provost, and I look forward to review and consideration of the views of the Senate on this matter.

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.

Cornell Graduate Student Workers United – United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (CGSU-UE) representation on the CPRC is not appropriate. The collective bargaining agreement between the university and CGSU permits the university to modify policies, including conduct regulations, after providing notice and an opportunity for consultation. The university will follow those provisions with regard to SCC amendments. 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.

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, President, and Kavita Bala, Provost

Posted: September 2, 2025

“Resolution Concerning Excessive and Unreasonable Delay in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings and Providing for Reform of Procedures under the Student Code of Conduct.”

Whereas excessive and unreasonable delays in cases where a student or student organization has been temporarily suspended are a violation of due process and individual rights as a member of the Cornell community;

Whereas Sriram Parasurama was temporarily suspended by the central administration on October 16, 2024, for his participation in a protest at the Statler Hotel on September 18, 2024;

Whereas Sriram Parasurama’s disciplinary hearing was held approximately 250 days later, on June 23, 2025;

Whereas during the eight months intervening between the protest and the disciplinary hearing the central administration imposed a temporary suspension on Sriram Parasurama under which he was denied access to University facilities and was unable to pursue his studies;

Whereas Chapter VIII Title A of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures states that a temporary suspension may be imposed only when available less restrictive measures are reasonably deemed insufficient to protect the Complainant or the University community;

Whereas the complainant in Sriram Parasurama’s case was Scott Grantz, a Lieutenant in the Cornell University Police Department, who was unlikely to need protection;

Whereas the two corporations, L3Harris Technologies and Boeing. which were the focus of the protest in which Sriram Parasurama participated are neither part of the University community nor do they require protection;

Whereas only two witnesses, one of them an officer employed by the Cornell University Police Department and the other the manager of the Statler Hotel, presented evidence in the hearing in support of the central administration’s prosecution of Sriram Parasurama, evidence that could have been presented immediately after the protest had occurred;

Whereas for all these reasons the manner in which disciplinary proceedings were conducted were a flagrant violation of the central administration’s own regulations;

Whereas “justice delayed is justice denied,” all students should be given a prompt hearing after they have been charged under the Student Code of Conduct and, until they have been given that hearing, they should not be punished by the University;

Whereas the implementation of the Student Code of Conduct by the central administration has repeatedly infringed upon freedom of expression and the individual rights of students and thus necessitates thorough reform;

Whereas thorough reform of the Student Code of Conduct and practices associated with its implementation should only be considered in a fully democratic process involving all members of the Cornell community in which the central administration plays only an advisory role;

Be it therefore resolved that the Faculty Senate censure the central administration of Cornell University for the prejudicial and discriminatory prosecution of Sriram Parasurama;

Be it further resolved that the Student Code of Conduct should be revised in order to assure that students cannot be unfairly treated by the central administration in disciplinary proceedings;

Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate believes that the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards which oversees enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct should be independent of the central administration;

Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate proposes that the Student Code of Conduct be revised by freely-elected members of the University Assembly, the Student Assembly, the Faculty Senate, and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly;

Be it further resolved that a committee composed of three freely-elected members of each of these bodies revise the Student Code of Conduct and that the revision be approved by each of these bodies.

Sponsors

Faculty Senators

Richard Bensel
Oumar Ba
Sandra Babcock
Anne Marie Brady
Tobi Hines
Harold Hodes
Tracy McNulty
Paul Ortiz
Hayden Pelliccia
Noah Tamarkin
Andrew Yen

Other Faculty
Begum Adalet
Catherine Appert
David Bateman
Kate Bronfenbrenner
Derek Chang
Raymond B. Craib
Iftikhar Dadi
Ileen DeVault
Shimon Edelman
Shannon Gleeson
Dan Hirschman
Risa L. Lieberwitz
Corinna Loeckenhoff
Beth Lyon
Joseph Margulies
Ken Roberts
Nerissa Russell
Chantal Thomas

Posted: October 3, 2025

Subsidiary Motion Regarding the Resolution Concerning Excessive and Unreasonable Delay in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings and Providing for Reform of Procedures under the Student Code of Conduct

Sponsored by the University Faculty Committee (UFC)

Preamble. By advancing this motion, we aim to ensure that faculty voices are not only heard but meaningfully integrated into institutional decision-making processes, consistent with our commitment to shared governance and the long-term health of the university. This motion acknowledges the ongoing dialogue between the University Faculty Committee and the resolution sponsors and affirms our shared commitment to transparency and collaboration. It also reflects the procedural support provided by the UFC, including efforts to obtain relevant data from the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS), in response to sponsor requests.

Motion. The University Faculty Committee recognizes that the resolution raises serious concerns about administrative accountability and procedural delays. In order to determine whether these concerns reflect broader systemic issues, we recommend referral of the matter to a standing committee for review following proposed revisions by the sponsors. Therefore, the University Faculty Committee moves that:

1. The sponsors of the resolution titled, “Resolution Concerning Excessive and Unreasonable Delay in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings and Providing for Reform of Procedures under the Student Code of Conduct,” consider revising the resolution by October 13, 2025, in accordance with the recommendations outlined below.
2. Upon receipt of the revised resolution or on October 14, the Committee on Academic Programs and Policies (CAPP) shall conduct a review and provide feedback by October 27, in preparation for consideration at the November Faculty Senate meeting.

Recommended Revisions:

• Split the resolution into two distinct components:
  • One focused on censure of Central Administration.
  • One focused on process improvements to the Student Code of Conduct.
• Refine the “Whereas” clauses to provide background context without prematurely stating conclusions.
• Acknowledge the formal review process underway by the Office of Student and Campus Life and offer constructive suggestions that may inform or enhance that process.
• The UFC has been in communication with the sponsors to suggest that incorporating relevant data from the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) regarding the number and duration of formal hearings would help contextualize concerns about procedural delays and support evidence-based recommendations. The Office of the Dean of Faculty, on behalf of the sponsors, has arranged for Vice President Lombardi to come to the Faculty Senate to present these OSCCS findings for Faculty Senate consideration.

Posted: October 20, 2025

“Resolution Concerning Overuse of Temporary Suspensions, Excessive Delays that Violate Due Process in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings, and the Need for Reform of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures.”

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 a temporary suspension is one of the most severe punishments the University can impose, and an academic temporary suspension subjects the student to immediate de-enrollment, severe restrictions on their ability to access campus facilities or attend religious services, loss of campus employment or graduate student stipends or assistantships, and in some cases loss of F-1 visa status and exposure to deportation, all before any investigation has taken place or any evidence has been presented;

Whereas the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) and the Cornell administration temporarily suspended more than 30 Cornell students in 2024 and 2025 for protest activity, the overwhelming majority of whom had engaged in nonviolent conduct or speech;

Whereas the Cornell administration imposed these temporary suspensions before providing a hearing on their alleged conduct;

Whereas the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity (CCEA), in its December 2024 report (Appendix A), 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;

Whereas the CCEA expressed “concerns about temporary suspensions being used punitively” based on “disturbing accounts of severe temporary suspensions being issued to students for non-violent conduct, without adequate due process;”

Whereas the CCEA further warned that “the purposes of temporary suspension can become blurred between two rationales: (1) non-punitive protection of other community members from imminent harms or avoidance of substantial property damage, and (2) coercive discipline used to deter, retaliate, or compel immediate compliance with Cornell policies;”

Whereas the CCEA concluded that “the OSCCS has imposed temporary suspensions, suspended those suspensions when the students involved have promised to comply with Cornell rules, and then re-imposed suspensions based on alleged violations,” such that these cases can “appear to involve an unhealthy plea-bargaining dynamic, in which excessively harsh threats of punishment are used to compel “voluntary” agreement with inappropriate restrictions and waivers of future due process protections (such as short-circuiting the full deliberative disciplinary process);”

Whereas multiple students were “temporarily suspended” for entire semesters for conduct that hearing panels ultimately found did not violate the Code (see Appendix B);

Whereas the temporary suspensions were not subject to any form of review or appeal outside of a small set of Cornell administrators;

Whereas for all these reasons the manner in which disciplinary proceedings were conducted violated the central administration’s own regulations and therefore violated due process;

Whereas all students should be given a prompt hearing after they have been charged under the Student Code of Conduct and, until they have been given that hearing, they should not be punished by the University;

Whereas students were compelled to wait months for a hearing while enduring the hardships accompanying their temporary suspensions;

Whereas justice delayed is justice denied;

Whereas pressuring students to censor their own speech as a condition of lifting temporary suspensions violates the university’s Core Value of Free and Open Inquiry and Expression (see Appendix B);

Whereas these delays have a chilling effect on freedom of expression of the suspended students and other students who will avoid protests because they fear being suspended without due process;

Whereas all or almost all of the students who received temporary suspensions in 2024 and 2025 were engaged in pro-Palestine expressive activity, raising concerns that viewpoint discrimination in violation of academic freedom and freedom of expression may have been a factor;

Whereas reform of the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures is urgently needed and should only be considered in a fully democratic process involving elected representatives of all university constituencies;

Whereas the current Student Code instructs the Vice President for Student and Campus Life (VP SCL) or their designee to chair and convene a standing “Code and Procedures Review Committee” that includes representatives from the Student Assembly (SA) and the Graduate Student and Professional Assembly (GPSA), but does not otherwise designate members of the Review Committee;

Whereas the Code and Procedures Review Committee plays a central role in revising the Student Code and Procedures;

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” provisions, avoidance of delays, and evenhandedness in enforcement measures;

Be it further resolved that the faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, and employee members of the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be elected by the Faculty Senate, the Student Assembly, and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, respectively, and that the University Assembly, the CGSU-UE, and the Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors should each elect an additional member of the Code and Procedures Review Committee;

Be it further resolved that any individuals from the central administration and the OSCCS who are on the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be ex officio non-voting advisory members;

Be it further resolved that the OSCCS, in its enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures, should be independent in its decision-making from the influence of the central administration, especially when the administration is the complainant

Be it finally resolved that the Code and Procedures Review Committee should consider reforms that address issues including, but not limited to: limitations on the use of temporary suspensions and reforms of the appeals process, including those recommended in the CCEA report and by Respondents’ Codes Counselors (see Appendices B and C); and reforming the use of alternative resolutions to ensure that they are voluntary and to expand the use of meaningful restorative justice approaches.

Appendices:

A. The Report of the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity. See in particular the recommendations concerning temporary suspensions on pages 11-13.

B. Report of Calder Lewis, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Lewis worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.

C. Report of Dalton Sousa, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Sousa worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.

Faculty Senators

Richard Bensel
Oumar Ba
Sandra Babcock
Anne Marie Brady
Michelle Trillium Crow
Laurent Dubreuil
Tobi Hines
Harold Hodes
Tracy McNulty
Chris Monroe
Paul Ortiz
Iris Packman
Hayden Pelliccia
Maria Gonzalez Pendas
Noah Tamarkin
Andrew Yen

Other Faculty

Begum Adalet
Chloe Ahmann
Catherine Appert
David Bateman
Amiel Bize
Kate Bronfenbrenner
E. Wayles Brown
Derek Chang
Julia Haeyoon Chang
Reyna S Cohen
Raymond B. Craib
Iftikhar Dadi
Ileen DeVault
Shimon Edelman
Matthew Evanelista
Darlene Evans
Paul A. Fleming
Shannon Gleeson
Seema Golestaneh
Dan Hirschman
Saida Hodzic
Caroline Levine
Risa L. Lieberwitz
Corinna Loeckenhoff
Tamara Loos
Beth Lyon
Joseph Margulies
Julia Mizutani
Justine Modica
Paul Nadasdy
Juno Salazar Parreñas
Ken Roberts
Nerissa Russell
Chantal Thomas
Lindsay Thomas
Rachel Weil
Marina Welker

Posted: November 6, 2025

“Resolution Concerning Overuse of Temporary Suspensions, Excessive Delays that Violate Due Process in the Conduct of Disciplinary Hearings, and the Need for Reform of the Student Code of Conduct Procedures.”

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 a temporary suspension is one of the most severe punishments the University can impose, and an academic temporary suspension subjects the student to immediate de-enrollment, severe restrictions on their ability to access campus facilities or attend religious services, loss of campus employment or graduate student stipends or assistantships, and in some cases loss of F-1 visa status and exposure to deportation, all before any investigation has taken place or any evidence has been presented;

Whereas the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards (OSCCS) and the Cornell administration temporarily suspended more than 30 Cornell students in 2024 and 2025 for protest activity, the overwhelming majority of whom had engaged in nonviolent conduct or speech;

Whereas the Cornell administration imposed these temporary suspensions before providing a hearing on their alleged conduct;

Whereas the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity (CCEA), in its December 2024 report (Appendix A), 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;

Whereas the CCEA expressed “concerns about temporary suspensions being used punitively” based on “disturbing accounts of severe temporary suspensions being issued to students for non-violent conduct, without adequate due process;”

Whereas the CCEA further warned that “the purposes of temporary suspension can become blurred between two rationales: (1) non-punitive protection of other community members from imminent harms or avoidance of substantial property damage, and (2) coercive discipline used to deter, retaliate, or compel immediate compliance with Cornell policies”;

Whereas the CCEA concluded that “the OSCCS has imposed temporary suspensions, suspended those suspensions when the students involved have promised to comply with Cornell rules, and then re-imposed suspensions based on alleged violations,” such that these cases can “appear to involve an unhealthy plea-bargaining dynamic, in which excessively harsh threats of punishment are used to compel “voluntary” agreement with inappropriate restrictions and waivers of future due process protections (such as short-circuiting the full deliberative disciplinary process)”;

Whereas multiple students were “temporarily suspended” for entire semesters for conduct that hearing panels ultimately found did not violate the Code (see Appendix B);

Whereas the temporary suspensions were not subject to review or appeal outside of a small set of Cornell administrators;

Whereas all students should be given a prompt hearing after they have been charged under the Student Code of Conduct;

Whereas students were compelled to wait months for a hearing while enduring the hardships accompanying their temporary suspensions;

Whereas justice delayed is justice denied;

Whereas pressuring students to censor their own speech as a condition of lifting temporary suspensions violates the university’s Core Value of Free and Open Inquiry and Expression (see Appendix B);

Whereas these delays have a chilling effect on freedom of expression of the suspended students and other students who will avoid protests because they fear being suspended without due process;

Whereas reform of the Student Code of Conduct and Procedures is urgently needed and should only be considered in a fully democratic process involving elected representatives of all university constituencies;

Whereas the current Student Code instructs the Vice President for Student and Campus Life (VP SCL) or their designee to chair and convene a standing “Code and Procedures Review Committee” that includes representatives from the Student Assembly (SA) and the Graduate Student and Professional Assembly (GPSA), but does not otherwise designate members of the Review Committee;

Whereas the Code and Procedures Review Committee plays a central role in revising the Student Code and Procedures and this committee has been constituted through appointments by the University administration rather than through Cornell’s shared governance bodies;

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” provisions, avoidance of delays, and evenhandedness in enforcement measures;

Be it further resolved that the current Code and Procedures Review Committee convened by VP SCL to revise the Code should be replaced by a more representative committee;

Be it further resolved that the faculty, undergraduate student, graduate student, and employee members of the Code and Procedures Review Committee should be elected by the Faculty Senate, the Student Assembly, the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, and the Employee Assembly, respectively, and that the University Assembly, the CGSU-UE, and the Office of the Respondents’ Code Counselors should each elect an additional member of the Code and Procedures Review Committee;

Be it further resolved that any members of the CPRC from the central administration and the OSCCS should be ex officio non-voting advisory members;

Be it finally resolved that the Code and Procedures Review Committee should consider reforms that address issues including, but not limited to: increasing the independence of the application and enforcement of the Student Code of Conduct from the influence of the central administration, especially when the administration is the complainant; limitations on the use of temporary suspensions and reforms of the appeals process, including those recommended in the CCEA report and by Respondents’ Codes Counselors (see Appendices B and C); and reforming the use of alternative resolutions to ensure that they are voluntary and to expand the use of meaningful restorative justice approaches.

Appendices:

2025. The Report of the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity. See in particular the recommendations concerning temporary suspensions on pages 11-13.
2026. Report of Calder Lewis, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Lewis worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.
2027. Report of Dalton Sousa, Cornell Law School graduate (‘25) and Respondents’ Code Counselor Fall 2023-Spring 2025. Sousa worked for the OSCCS and was one of three RCCs who participated in disciplinary meetings with the students issued temporary suspensions during this period.

Sponsors of the Resolution

Faculty Senators

Richard Bensel
Oumar Ba
Sandra Babcock
Anne Marie Brady
Michelle Trillium Crow
Laurent Dubreuil
Tobi Hines
Harold Hodes
Tracy McNulty
Chris Monroe
Paul Ortiz
Iris Packman
Hayden Pelliccia
Maria Gonzalez Pendas
Chris Schaffer
Noah Tamarkin
Andrew Yen

Other Faculty

Begum Adalet
Chloe Ahmann
Catherine Appert
David Bateman
Amiel Bize
Kate Bronfenbrenner
Wayles Brown
Derek Chang
Julia Haeyoon Chang
Reyna S Cohen
Raymond B. Craib
Iftikhar Dadi
Ileen DeVault
Shimon Edelman
Matt Evangelista
Darlene Evans
Paul A. Fleming
Shannon Gleeson
Seema Golestaneh
Dan Hirschman
Saida Hodzic
Caroline Levine
Risa L. Lieberwitz
Corinna Loeckenhoff
Tamara Loos
Beth Lyon
Joseph Margulies
Julia Mizutani
Justine Modica
Paul Nadasdy
Juno Salazar Parrenas
Ken Roberts
Nerissa Russell
Chantal Thomas
Lindsay Thomas
Rachel Weil
Marina Welker

Others

The Executive Board of CGSU-UE Local 300 unanimously endorsed the resolution.

The Student Assembly has passed a resolution that is very similar to the Faculty Senate version: R10 – Addressing the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance.pdf | Powered by Box