CJC Comments: Deferring Based on Pending Criminal Charges

Current practice desribed by Krause Report

Certain types of misconduct, including felonies, continue to be “prosecuted” under the Code while being adjudicated in the courts. Otherwise, when the administration determines that the misconduct “does not constitute a serious breach of the law and that the interests of justice would be served,” University will generally withhold exercise of campus jurisdiction, “when prompt public prosecution is anticipated or is under way,” until public proceedings are completed.

Proposed practice in Krause Report

University ordinarily will conduct campus disciplinary proceedings regardless of possible or pending criminal charges or civil claims related to the same incident or behavior. (Allows discretion to defer.)

Current practices are based on weighing the need to protect the community and the interests of the accused. I find them reasonable, but if the community prefers to always have expeditious processing of allegations, then that would be reasonable too.

This is another example of the kinds of issues that the current process, through CJC oversight, can deal with. That is, we do not need to adopt an entirely new process that removes community oversight and involvement in order to address issues such as this one.

I believe that this issue is very closely related to the issues of the right to remain silent and attorneys as advisors.

I will say here that I am willing to accept Ms. Krause’s recommendation that Cornell no longer (normally) defer university proceedings pending civil or criminal trials, *provided* that other safeguards are kept in place.

I’m not sure how many of you would like to see my posts - especially long ones - in triplicate. So for my views on the above three issues as a set, I refer you to my remarks under “Right to Remain Silent”.