- Status in current code
- Limited coverage to campus, except for presidential override for “grave misconduct.” (Relied on policies of Article II.A of Title I to mesh Cornell and criminal jurisdiction.)
- Proposed changes
- Adds to the presidential override (p. 7) by providing a more feasible, but still uncommon, jurisdiction over “serious” violations when “the conduct poses a substantial threat to the University’s educational mission or property or to the health or safety of University community members” (p. 20). The idea was to reach the kind of serious violations mentioned on p. 39, but instead of doing the impossible by defining those violations, the new provision on p. 20 relies on the procedural restraint of having the Judicial Administrator obtain the President’s approval of the exercise of jurisdiction. This is a significant change, but the thought is that the Code cannot ignore, say, a student committing rape in Collegetown.
David Lipson on 24 September 2007 at 11:50
In regard to: “This is a significant change, but the thought is that the Code cannot ignore, say, a student committing rape in Collegetown.”
If you look at the Duke case, there was never a conviction, yet 88 faculty joined to “pre-judge”. An alleged felony, must stay in that mode, until conviction. Lives were ruined by yellow-dog journalism, and vigilantes.
anonymous on 02 October 2007 at 13:53
if you read the statement by the Duke faculty members you will find that they did not pre-judge the accused though in retrospect they have been reputed to have done so. Surely Cornell must be able to take concurrent steps against a student accused of a serious offense, as happened recently for example, with Atkind.