University Assembly Demands Transparency: Addressing Student Concerns in the Code of Conduct Revision Process

In the first University Assembly (U.A.) meeting of the academic year on August 26, members discussed their desire to have a say on the 2025-26 Code and Procedures Review Committee. This comes after an announcement that the Student Code of Conduct will undergo changes.

The committee has 11 members, including representatives from the Student Assembly and the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GPSA). Their role is to review existing policies, gather feedback, and suggest changes to the Code, as noted in an email from Ryan Lombardi, the vice president for student and campus life. However, it doesn’t include direct representation from the U.A.

Professor David Bateman, a U.A. member and part of the Campus Codes Committee, stated that the U.A. should have a voice in this process. Concerns were raised during the meeting about how the committee was formed. Professor Jonathan Butcher emphasized that it seemed the University was making decisions on representation without consulting those involved.

The committee includes Student Assembly President Zora deRham and GPSA President Nicholas Brennan, both of whom are also U.A. members. A University representative mentioned they can represent concerns from both assemblies.

Eeshaan Chaudhuri, the U.A. vice chair for operations, suggested drafting a resolution to clarify how committee members were chosen and how the balance of students to administrators was determined. Currently, four of the committee’s 11 members are students, along with seven faculty and administrators.

U.A. members also highlighted that the Student Code of Conduct affects the entire campus community, not just students. Irene Gatimi, the U.A. Chair, reflected on the shift from the Campus Codes of Conduct to the Student Code of Conduct in 2021, which limited the Code’s authority.

The previous Campus Codes included faculty and staff, while the new Student Code focuses solely on student conduct. According to Lombardi, this change was intended to promote student involvement in the process. A University spokesperson said that consultation with the Assemblies will occur during the revision, with more details to come.

Despite this assurance, U.A. members expressed concerns about a lack of transparency. Gatimi pointed out that democratic processes require open dialogue. The U.A. plans to bring forward a resolution at their next meeting on September 16 to formally request representation on the review committee. If approved, this resolution will be sent to President Michael Kotlikoff for consideration.

Engaging students in the review process is crucial for fostering a sense of ownership and accountability within the campus community. Similar initiatives at other universities have shown that diverse representation leads to fairer and more effective policies. This ongoing dialogue is an opportunity for the U.A. to influence how conduct is managed at the university.

For more insights on conduct policies and student representation, you can check out Cornell’s official resources on the Student Code of Conduct.

Source link