Dear Richard:

I have received Graduate and Professional Student Assembly resolution 7, a call for an engaged and transparent conversation with the larger body of graduate and professional students. Thank you for acknowledging Cornell’s strong tradition of engaging students to work towards the common good. In my experience, faculty and staff are eager to collaborate with student leaders when considering significant changes to policy but several recent cases illustrate that the administration must do more to consult with student representatives about policies that fall within the charters of their governance bodies.

At all levels of the university policies are created and revised on a near-continual basis in order to maintain regulatory compliance, adapt to the changing needs of students and academic programs, adjust to financial pressures, act on strategic priorities, and improve the overall climate of our university community. The vast majority of policy changes are routine and non-controversial. Some policies, however, stir deep passions or spark lively debates.

The GPSA has been highly effective in advocating for graduate and professional students both as a body and by way of representation on numerous working committees across campus. This effectiveness relies on student leaders being appointed to, and actively participating on, committees such as the Student Insurance Advisory Committee (SIAC), the General Committee of the Graduate School, the GPCI working groups and other standing and ad hoc campus-wide working committees. As you know, this has been a particularly challenging year to engage students in filling all the slots available to them on these various bodies, and some have gone vacant for months. University processes aim to be transparent and involve students, but it is difficult when students don’t participate in the opportunities provided.

As the GPSA charter indicates, a fundamental purpose of the assembly is to examine, consult and recommend on policies that have a significant impact on graduate and professional studies. The charter, however, does not provide the GPSA a role on all working groups (such as the group charged with clarifying procedures for student injuries) or authority to review Board of Trustee actions such as setting stipend or tuition rates. The University should have worked more closely with the GPSA in the planning of the student health fee and I regret this shortcoming.

In an organization as large and complex as Cornell many decisions will not be reached by unanimous agreement so difficult choices are often necessary. In these cases the advisory role of the GPSA is most critical. I note that the GPSA has voiced clear opinions on such issues such as divesture, the revised policy on student injuries, and the need for reduced tuition for advanced doctoral students. Your well-considered recommendations are always appreciated and are factored into final decisions, even when the outcome is not what the GPSA hopes for.

While I support the spirit expressed in resolution 7 I cannot endorse it as written because of its exceedingly broad mandates. The GPSA charter does grant the GPSA the right to be consulted about non-academic policies which directly affect graduate and professional students, and University leadership will re-commit to honoring this obligation. Consultation in the form of public notice or comment, as you propose, is not workable. I encourage you to continue your efforts on this topic by engaging with the Graduate School and professional schools to more specifically identify topics, policies and decisions that the GPSA can advise on. As always, thank you for your efforts on behalf of Cornell graduate students.

Regards,

David Skorton