UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Current practice described in Krause Report

Clear and convincing.

Proposed practice in Krause Report

Preponderance (more likely than not). Most campus judicial systems use this standard. (See full report for citation.)

Proposed practice can be easily abused.

more likely than not is practiced in most dictatorial states.

‘Clear and convincing′ should stay.

A 51% to 49% probability does not strike me as a fair criterion for convicting someone. There might still be reasonable doubt. Likelihood is in the mind of the perceiver and people may differ. Clear and convincing should stay.

“Most campus judicial system use this standard” is not a good reason for Cornell to adopt it. The standard should be chosen on the merits. (Would we really want to follow all the other sheep off a cliff?) We should limit our interest in other schools’ policies to the reasons behind their choices.

The stakes in some cases may be too high for preponderance to be an appropriate standard. For example, as a student, I would consider expulsion from school the scholastic death penalty. I’m sure many others feel the same way. If a parking ticket is in dispute, the preponderance standard is acceptable. But, if a student’s future livelihood is in the balance, the “clear and convincing” standard is by far more appropriate than preponderance.

Most students, by far, I imagine, come from the perspective that they are at Cornell in order to attain a degree. Being part of the campus community is just a side effect. With that in mind, choosing the preponderance standard over “clear and convincing” because the former is supposedly better for the campus community (to the detriment of one’s ability to attain a degree) seems unjust. I would rather have the guilty go free when the evidence is very weak than have the innocent expelled. (That innocent person could be me!)

“More likely than not” Seems to be a needless weakening of the requirement for assesing guilt. Do we really want to mete out punishment if we have not been clearly convinced by the evidence.

Why would the code be changed?

Is this some kind of sick joke? ‘More likely than not’ violates the fundamental libertarian principles of this society. Anything less than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is unaccaptable.

‘More likely than not’ is not a sufficient criteria for deciding individual guilt in any one case, just like ‘more unlikely than not’ does not excuse anyone who actually did something. Have we lost the lessons learned by the legal system? I understand the desire to avoid legal terminology, but let’s not toss the baby out with the bathwater. If the intent is truly to provide an educational environment, something like ‘well beyond a reasonable doubt’ would seem a minimum standard.

I can’t say I like changing the criteria to a preponderance of the evidence, especially in cases where the results will have life-changing effects (e.g. expulsion). Can those who are proposing the change demonstrate any need to change the standards of proof? Are there many cases where the preponderance of evidence suggests that someone has broken the Code of Conduct, but the evidence is somehow not clear enough or convincing enough? If this is a small problem, then there is no need to change to looser standards of proof. Is there any in-between stage, such that a preponderance of evidence will go on a student’s record but not carry the full weight of sanctions unless the evidence is clear and convincing? Should there be such an in-between stage?

I respect every point of view and the reasons and arguments for them. But if this is true, I believe most campus judicial systems are wrong.

When people think of JA, they probably assume it has to do with someone accused of underage drinking, or a relatively minor offense. However, this is not the case. Many severe and life-changing cases go up to the JA. And lets not kid ourselves here, in many of these cases, the students are innocent. I was witness to one case where the accused was charged with sexual harrasment and was clearly innocent (he was later found to be through the JA). Just think of what could have happened otherwise.

It looks clear that the University wants to make these changes to increase efficiency, and decrease the visibility of each offense. Why wouldn’t they? To them, a few individual student’s affairs could affect the overall image of the University (e.g. The stabbing incident). However, people’s life are affected by these decisions. The system should not be stripped of its integrity to increase ‘efficiency’ in any manner. Just like in the real world, the law should be designed to let the guilty go free rather than send the innocent to the gallows. We have to be sure before we ruin someone’s life.

These standards of proof are fine distinctions derived from the legal system. Only lawyers know how to apply these standards in practice and even then there are probably hearty debates.

The JA and the Hearing Boards fully understand the consequences of their decisions and in all cases seek to be convinced that the infraction occurred. Cases likely to result in severe penalties usually go to the Hearing Board, not because we are better at determining truth, but because we better represent the diversity of opinion within the community in interpreting evidence and determining its relevance and significance. The larger Hearing Board in the present system better represents the diversity in the community that the smaller Board in the administration’s proposal.

An evidentiary sufficiency standard of “clear and convincing” is without question a far better basis than the proposed “more likely than not”. The latter standard leaves the system far more vulnerable to abuse, whether from false accusations, vendetta or agendas (again, sadly not without precedent in other universities).

I understand “clear and convincing evidence” as meaning “very likely the case, and I’d bet money on it - but not my life,” “beyond a reasonable doubt” as meaning “I don’t see how anyone could reasonably disagree; I’m sure enough to marry someone or risk my job based on it” and “preponderance of the evidence” as meaning “whichever story is more likely is the one I’m going with; if it’s an absolute 50–50 tossup and I would otherwise flip a coin, then favor the respondent”.

I agree with most of the people here. I am not convinced the standard should change to “preponderance of the evidence”.

“Clear and convincing evidence” is a fair compromise between “beyond a reasonable doubt” which we use for criminal trials and “preponderance of the evidence” where the defendant is found responsible if it’s even a little more likely that s/he committed the offense than that s/he didn’t.

I might add that we use “beyond a reasonable doubt” even for misdemeanors like telephone harassment, for which the punishment (which need not include a jail sentence) would likely be seen as no more life-changing or severe than, say, suspension or expulsion from Cornell.

The difference has nothing to do with the relative importance of the respondent and the complainant, as the Krause report puts it. We as a society have long understood that it’s (normally) better to let ten guilty people go free - again, under a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt - than let one innocent person be punished. That doesn’t take away from victims’ rights. It’s just a recognition of the power of the authorities to do wrong, whether by mistake or even, as Brian Richards pointed out, on purpose.

Last but not least, it is indeed true that many, perhaps a majority of, other schools use “preponderance of the evidence”. I’ll bet most other schools also don’t make it a point to offer any person instruction in any study, either. There are certain things about Cornell I’ll always be proud of, and its commitment to due process is one of them.

American law uses “beyond a reasonable doubt”. My former high school uses “more likely than not”. Why would Cornell try to become more like a high school, or as adw8 said above, like a dictatorial state?