This resolution claims that, in brief, the Provost ignored the findings of the AFPSF, in violation of University Policy 6.4. The claims appear to be based on information reported by Gabe Levin in ‘The Nation’, based on emails which were presumably forwarded to all sitting faculty senators.
It is perhaps worth noting some sections from “Procedures for Resolution of Reports against Employees Under Cornell University Policy 6.4 for the Following Acts of Non-Title IX Prohibited Conduct” which are NOT mentioned in the resolution.
First, in two sections, the procedures spell out that the reviewer is NOT obligated to follow the recommendations of the investigators (ie: the Faculty Committee in this case, the AFPSF).
In section 9.10:
“The reviewer (or the President or Board of Trustees, if appropriate) to whom the investigation report summary is forwarded ultimately may accept, modify, or reject the determination or recommended sanctions and/or remedial measures, or return the report for further investigation.”
Moreover, in section 9.12 (including and immediately following the single sentence cited in the resolution):
“The dean or equivalent unit head must accept the Committee’s findings of fact and conclusions. However, he or she may modify the Committee’s recommended sanctions.”
So the policy makes it very clear that the fact-finding committee (the AFPSF) is NOT the final word on these investigations. Further – it even makes it clear that the committee is basically the middle of the process. If fact-finding has advanced to the Faculty Senate committee, it has already been appealed once. And, a SECOND level of appeal is available.
Section 9.11 spells out how the complainant can appeal a finding at the level of dean (which is where the Faculty Senate Committee is involved), and for what reasons. Such an appeal is heard by an individual appointed by the President (ie: upper administration most likely), and appeals may be grounded on a number of bases. Two of these are:
“4. The investigator or reviewer committed a prejudicial error in interpreting the policy or code. 5. The investigator or reviewer rendered a decision clearly against the weight of the evidence.”
This is EXACTLY what the article in “the Nation” alleges – that the Provost (ie: a person likely to be appointed by the President to deal with such a matter) made claims on largely those allowed grounds:
“In an August 8 letter to Cheyfitz, Bala wrote that the Faculty Senate committee had reached “a conclusion that is entirely inconsistent with the undisputed facts and governing external legal standards,” making it “imperative that those findings be set aside,””
This, and the remainder of the reporting on which this resolution is based, demonstrate pretty clearly that university policy was being followed. In fact, there is only one place in this whole saga where Policy 6.4 has probably been violated. The Nation names the student involved in these allegations, and in the exact same paragraph mentions that the student did not desire to be identified, due to fears pertaining to personal safety. And the policy 6.4 procedures explicitly say that all matters are to be confidential. There is no real news value in the student’s name – the fact that the student was clearly named would appear to be a violation of the confidentiality granted by policy 6.4, and possibly of federal laws which forbid acts of retaliation against claimants bringing civil rights accusations.
If the faculty senate is going to censure anyone, it should be whomever chose to retaliate against this student by revealing the student’s name in direct violation of University policy.
This resolution claims that, in brief, the Provost ignored the findings of the AFPSF, in violation of University Policy 6.4. The claims appear to be based on information reported by Gabe Levin in ‘The Nation’, based on emails which were presumably forwarded to all sitting faculty senators.
It is perhaps worth noting some sections from “Procedures for Resolution of Reports against Employees Under Cornell University Policy 6.4 for the Following Acts of Non-Title IX Prohibited Conduct” which are NOT mentioned in the resolution.
First, in two sections, the procedures spell out that the reviewer is NOT obligated to follow the recommendations of the investigators (ie: the Faculty Committee in this case, the AFPSF).
In section 9.10:
“The reviewer (or the President or Board of Trustees, if appropriate) to whom the investigation report summary is forwarded ultimately may accept, modify, or reject the determination or recommended sanctions and/or remedial measures, or return the report for further investigation.”
Moreover, in section 9.12 (including and immediately following the single sentence cited in the resolution):
“The dean or equivalent unit head must accept the Committee’s findings of fact and conclusions. However, he or she may modify the Committee’s recommended sanctions.”
So the policy makes it very clear that the fact-finding committee (the AFPSF) is NOT the final word on these investigations. Further – it even makes it clear that the committee is basically the middle of the process. If fact-finding has advanced to the Faculty Senate committee, it has already been appealed once. And, a SECOND level of appeal is available.
Section 9.11 spells out how the complainant can appeal a finding at the level of dean (which is where the Faculty Senate Committee is involved), and for what reasons. Such an appeal is heard by an individual appointed by the President (ie: upper administration most likely), and appeals may be grounded on a number of bases. Two of these are:
“4. The investigator or reviewer committed a prejudicial error in interpreting the policy or code.
5. The investigator or reviewer rendered a decision clearly against the weight of the evidence.”
This is EXACTLY what the article in “the Nation” alleges – that the Provost (ie: a person likely to be appointed by the President to deal with such a matter) made claims on largely those allowed grounds:
“In an August 8 letter to Cheyfitz, Bala wrote that the Faculty Senate committee had reached “a conclusion that is entirely inconsistent with the undisputed facts and governing external legal standards,” making it “imperative that those findings be set aside,””
This, and the remainder of the reporting on which this resolution is based, demonstrate pretty clearly that university policy was being followed. In fact, there is only one place in this whole saga where Policy 6.4 has probably been violated. The Nation names the student involved in these allegations, and in the exact same paragraph mentions that the student did not desire to be identified, due to fears pertaining to personal safety. And the policy 6.4 procedures explicitly say that all matters are to be confidential. There is no real news value in the student’s name – the fact that the student was clearly named would appear to be a violation of the confidentiality granted by policy 6.4, and possibly of federal laws which forbid acts of retaliation against claimants bringing civil rights accusations.
If the faculty senate is going to censure anyone, it should be whomever chose to retaliate against this student by revealing the student’s name in direct violation of University policy.