Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 28, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Excused: Samantha Dong, Rammy Salem

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Nikki Junewicz, Rachel Quigley, Sanjiv Tata

C. Slicklen welcomed R. Quigley who would be sitting in for Greg Mezey as the Greek Liaison.

III. Approval of the Minutes

R. Lavin noted that L. Polivy is no longer the Greek Liaison and should not be listed under those present at the meeting. The clerk made the correction.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the February 14, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

John Farragut said that the when he went to RPCC to have dinner the other night, the walls of the building were covered in advertisements for the Vagina Carnival. The posters featured the word cunt. He said he personally felt that it was a disgrace that the posters were permitted. Students are not the only individuals allowed in RPCC. Cunt is a distasteful word and those having dinner in the dining hall should not have to be exposed to the posters. Although he supports free speech, he wondered why the posters were permitted.

In response to a question asked by C. Slicklen, J. Farragut said that the event was sponsored by the Women’s Resource Center.

A. Gay said that the SA does not control the advertising content of organizations from a policy perspective.

V. Hartman said that posters hung in RPCC must be approved by Residential Life. He suggested that J. Farragut contact Residential Life to learn more about the posting policy and whether or not the posters he saw were approved.

R. Quigley said that the event the posters advertised involved such activities as dildo bowling, vagina cookies, and giant vagina sculptures. She said that the event was much more vulgar than she feels that representatives understand it to be. The event was more offensive than the actual posters. She wondered if there was any way to monitor what events are held where. There was no forewarning of the event before walking into RPCC.

R. Stein said that she heard of the event and was also appalled by it. She would be more than happy to work with J. Farragut because she thought the event was disgusting.

R. Lavin said that although the SA cannot control event content, representatives could at least contact the group and start a discussion. The SA has a degree of oversight since the Women’s Resource Center is by-line funded.

M. Asgary agreed with R. Lavin in that the SA has a degree of oversight over the Women’s Resource Center. The SA should have an interest in ensuring that the organization’s they by-line fund follow campus policies. He confirmed that the posters were being displayed as a part of the event. If individuals from the organization are present along with the posters and the posters are a part of the event, they need not be approved. He suggested contacting Denise Cassaro who has oversight over a lot of the programming in the North Campus buildings.

A. McGovern suggested that J. Farragut speak with both Residential Life and the organization if the event offended him. She however said that the event and others like it are safe sex events. The events create open spaces for people. Although the event may be distasteful to him, for others it is a positive event.

M. Coombs said that he has been to the Women’s Resource Center website and has read their mission statement. He is not sure that events such as the Vagina Carnival coincide with the organization’s posted mission. It would perhaps be appropriate to examine if Women’s Resource Center events and actions were in line with their mission statement which is a very noble one.

J. F said that his net id is jdf222 if any representative wishes to speak with him further.

V. Announcements/Reports

Spring 2008 Elections Report — Mark Coombs

M. Coombs said that he was informed by the Office of Assemblies that there was a piece of legislation passed in 1985 that established the liaison seats. Until the assembly passes a resolution redefining the seats, no legislation is needed. Therefore, it does not matter if Resolution 15 passes.

A. Salem asked if the resolution passed in 1985 was a charter amendment.

M. Coombs said it was his understanding after talking with A. Epstein that it is unnecessary to pass a charter amendment to define the seats.

C. Slicklen said that the discussion would be continued when the assembly discusses Resolution 15 under Business of the Day.

SWOT Announcement — Elan Greenberg

E. Greenberg said that what is likely to be the first of four SWOT Analysis meetings would be held on Saturday, March 1 at 11 a.m. in Goldwin Smith Hall. Four hours have been allotted for time but it should not take that long. Students and representatives may come and go as they please. He will e-mail additional information about the meeting.

M. Coombs said that Sun elections are also being that day.

C. Slicklen said that the meeting will be the first in a series. It is not necessary that those interested in participating in the analysis attend all meetings.

E. Greenberg encouraged representatives to bring community members and their ideas.

M. Asgary said that as far as he is aware there is nothing yet that allows the group of individuals conducting the SWOT Analysis to move forward. To him the meetings are problematic because community members and students from other bodies are participating in the meetings and will be able to eat the food provided at the meeting purchased with money from the assembly budget.

E. Greenberg said that as an assembly member it his right and obligation to engage both the assembly and the student body.

C. Slicklen said that any representative can hold an informal meeting. The issue of purchasing food has not been addressed by the Executive Board. Perhaps every individual in attendance could contribute a few dollars.

E. Greenberg said that he will take a more reactive approach. He will purchase the food out of pocket and can later look into reimbursement.

Additional Announcements

C. Slicklen said that he was pleased to announce that the SA, in conjunction with the Collegiate Readership Program, the Johnson School of Management and the School of Hotel Administration, would be sponsoring the USA Today CEO Forum featuring the CEO of American Express Ken Chenault. USA Today has graciously invited the SA to participate and their logo will be included. No financial contribution is needed. The event will take place on April 3, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. Realizing the conflict with the SA meeting, USA Today has asked that any Student Assembly representatives interested in participating as ushers or in attending to let him know. He passed around a sign up sheet. He thanked R. Irwin and R. Smith for helping bring the event to Cornell.

A. Gay said that upon request last week he was asked to look into both A. Wang’s and the Multicultural Greek Letter Council’s (MGLC) conduct. He was first asked to investigate whether or not the MGLC responded to e-mails in a timely fashion. The request is derived from Appendix B which states that the SA Vice-President for Finance shall be charged with investigation of all accusations regarding violations of these guidelines and will report such findings to the SA. After further examination of the Charter and precedent, no inquiry or investigation can be initiated until some form of evidence or substantive allegations emerge that the MGLC has actually done anything in violation of Appendix B or their own charter. The only thing that representatives had presented last week was that the MGLC had not responded to the e-mails of A. Wang in a timely matter. Until there is a substantive allegation or a real violation, he is closing that aspect of the discussion. If A. Wang or any other representative presents him with e-mails or actual documents he will look into them. He was also asked to investigate A. Wang’s conduct which precipitated the entire discussion. It is clear that he directly and explicitly used his elected position to pass�(cutoff)

A. Wang said to the chair that part of the investigation was supposed to involve examining the MGLC’s finances.

A. Gay said that he was charged with investigating the entire process because it involves a by-line funded organization. It is clear that A. Wang directly and explicitly used his elected position to reference future funding loss to influence the finances of his own outside organization. To him, A. Wang’s conduct smacks of impropriety and runs counter to every principle of equity, fair dealings, and objective representation that all representatives swore to uphold. The assembly just finished the by-line funding process where many representatives abstained from votes from which they had any connection to groups. To pressure a by-line funded group is to him absurd. There is a great distinction between advocacy and coercion especially when dealing with financing and financial oversight. The issue was brought to the SA Executive Board by a by-line funded group�(cutoff)

A. Salem asked what the announcement was.

C. Slicklen said that A. Gay is reporting back to the assembly at the request of M. Asgary and himself. The report is on the alleged conduct and misconduct of A. Wang.

A. Gay said that the issue was brought to the SA Executive Board by a by-line funded group who was very concerned by the conduct of an SA representative with regards to financial oversight. As the individual having oversight over the SA’s relationships with by-line funded groups, A. Wang’s e-mails greatly concern him. He said that the only action he can take is to investigate and report on conduct. He hopes that the assembly will act appropriately in light of the information presented.

M. Asgary said he didn’t know what part of A. Gay’s statement reported on his investigation.

A. Gay said that a violation occurs when rules outlined in Appendix B are violated. The only e-mails that he saw related to A. Wang’s conduct and not to the conduct of the MGLC. There were no legitimate allegations of MGLC misconduct. Violations only occur when organizations violate stipulations in Appendix B.

M. Asgary asked what stipulations applied to the MGLC.

A. Gay said that only one stipulation applied to the MGLC and that it has no relation whatsoever to A. Wang’s e-mails.

M. Coombs asked if Roberts Rules set out any specific procedures for addressing specific grievances against a member of a body like the SA.

G. Mazza started to look for an answer in Roberts Rules.

M. Coombs motioned to end discussion.

C. Slicklen used his discretion as chair to end discussion.

A. Gay said that he would send out the statement he read at the end of the meeting.

VI. Business of the Day

NCAA Recertification Presentation — Vice President Opperman

Mary Opperman introduced herself as the VP for Human Resources and the Co-Chair of the Cornell University NCAA Recertification Steering Committee. She said that she was accompanied by Dale Grossman, Professor of Applied Economics and Management, Chair of the Commitment to Equity Subcommittee. She was additionally accompanied by Nelson Roth, Deputy University Council and Chair of the Governance and Commitment to Rules Subcommittee.

An overview of process and the plan of action is available at http://www.cornell.edu/NCAA/index.html. The self study report that the speakers presented will available on the website shortly. (Meeting audio is also available on the Student Assembly website).

M. Opperman said the NCAA Recertification Steering Committee is very pleased with the results of the self study. She informed the assembly that the committee specifically selected members who they felt would look critically at the university. This is one of the reasons why the presenters just outlined areas where the university could improve, although they already meet the NCAA standards. In March, the group will present their initial findings to the Board of Trustees. After presenting to the Board of Trustees, an open forum will be held. The final self-study report will be prepared for submission to the NCAA by May 1, 2008. The NCAA can choose to recertify Cornell with no restrictions, to certify Cornell with restrictions or to not certify Cornell. She said that updated information will be provided on their website.

M. Asgary thanked the presenters for attending. He asked what VP Opperman thought the outcome of the recertification would be.

M. Opperman said that the committee is hopeful that the university will be certified without restrictions.

V. Hartman thanked the presenters for attending. He said that he does not necessarily agree with the NCAA’s policy at hockey games. He is referring to the cheer that goes rough em up, rough em up, go CU. Some members of the community sometimes divulge from these words. He feels that revocation of students’ entire season tickets for such a deviation is not really equitable. He feels that revoking the next game’s ticket or JAing students would be more appropriate. He is not sure of whom to approach about this issue but feels that the NCAA’s policy is a bit extreme.

A. Noel, Athletics Director, said that there is a NCAA rule that clearly states that it is a violation of their policy to say anything during an intercollegiate competition that is derogatory towards members of the opposition or the official. Athletics is also very sensitive regarding the use of the F word in Lynah Rink. About 8 or 9 years ago there were many chants and cheers that were objectionable. He is pleased to say that about 85% of the cheers are no longer used in Lynah. The rough em up cheer has a more positive and inspirational connotation. It is in Athletics’ purview to make saying the word unallowable and they have chosen to do so. For a number of years there was a more lenient punishment. However, recognizing that the use of the F word would not disappear with lenient punishment, they decided to enact the current policy. Staff members are trained to identify those who say banned words and students’ tickets are only revoked if there is no uncertainty regarding their use of the F word.

V. Hartman said he feels that the cheer is more cultural than derogatory toward the other team. Although he agrees that the F word should not be used in Lynah Rink, he feels that the punishment for using it is too severe.

A. Noel said he understands V. Hartman’s concern and perspective. However, Cornell should modify their culture to encompass a greater degree of sportsmanship. Students should also show concern for those individuals who attend sporting events and are not Cornell students.

M. Asgary asked when Appendix B would be discussed.

C. Slicklen said that Appendix B would be discussed at the Appropriations Committee Meeting on Monday, March 3 along with nine SAFC appeals. Appendix B and the SAFC appeals should be on next week’s agenda.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, A. Gay confirmed that minutes would be taken at the Appropriations Committee Meeting.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 15 — Clarification of Designated At-Large Seats — Vince Hartman

V. Hartman said that the resolution belongs to the assembly and that the assembly could continue with it. He is however removing himself as a sponsor of the resolution in light of the information provided by the Office of Assemblies.

C. Slicklen asked if any representative would like to add themselves as a sponsor to the resolution.

No one expressed interest.

C. Slicklen said that Resolution 15 was removed from the table and postponed indefinitely.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 17 — Concealed Carry on Campus

C. Slicklen said that he did some research regarding the resolution and spoke with Sergeant Scott Grantz, 1999, from the Cornell University Police Department. He furnished some notes on guns and weapon possession from the Campus Life House Rules, the Campus Code of Conduct and New York State Penal Law.

A. Gay motioned to move the resolution to Business of the Day. It was seconded. There were multiple dissents.

M. Coombs said that whether representatives are for or against the resolution, it addresses an incredibly important issue. It would be ridiculous for the assembly to jam the resolution through in one day.

By a hand vote of 10–8−0, the resolution was moved to Business of the Day.

C. Slicklen reminded the audience and the assembly that the resolution could now be debated and voted on.

M. Coombs said that it was unfortunate that the assembly moved the resolution to Business of the Day. He feels that the decision will reflect badly in the media. Additionally the attempt to push through the resolution in disregard of parliamentary procedure will reflect badly on the assembly. The resolution addresses for many what is an extremely sensitive topic. He hopes that the assembly can approach the issue seriously and intellectually just as our country’s forefathers approached the decision to give the free people, for the first time, the right to bear arms on a personal level.

M. Coombs read the Resolution 17 aloud.

“Whereas, recent campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University represent an intolerable failure of the “gun-free zone” to ensure the safety and the security of the students within it;

Whereas, the restrictions inherent to such a zone � despite the good intentions of the state and university officials in enforcing them � have proven time and again to hurt those they are intended to help and help those whose intent is to hurt;

Whereas, Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. of Utah signed legislation in March of last year allowing concealed carry on all public university campuses in his state, and, in so doing, proved that taking such a step is neither radical nor impractical;

Whereas, in the preceding months, leading us to believe that the fear of lawfully obtained firearms is unfounded and misdirected;

Whereas, the oft-quoted Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part, that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”;”

M. Coombs said that the sponsors wanted to stress that they are fully aware that as private institution this does not directly apply. The second amendment is quoted because it is important to the spirit of Cornell as institution which aims to prepare students for life beyond college.

“Whereas, we, like one of that amendment’s greatest advocates, believe that any such infringements merely “make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants,” and that “they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man” ;

Be it therefore resolved that this assembly strongly urge the administration to take whatever action is necessary to allow for concealed carry on campus;

Be it further resolved that, should the administration refuse, we ask President David Skorton to instruct the proper authorities to prepare a detailed position paper on this issue delineating the reasons for that refusal, whereupon this assembly will then determine its own response.”

M. Coombs said that it would be fitting to quote the historian, Charles Beard, who said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself the reputation of a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very same phrases our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” This morning when he and A. Salem opened the Cornell Daily Sun this morning, a statement read: “They argue that we are our own best protectors, that right to bear arms is a fundamental right, they’ve got it all wrong.” He said that the statement refers to himself, A. Salem and all others who support the resolution. The statement is fascinating especially given the report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee of the Judiciary from the United States Senate in the 97th Congress. The report states that the conclusion is less inescapable that the history, concept and wording of the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States has been interpreted by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification to indicate that what is expected is an individual right to carry firearms in a peaceful manner. He said that the Sun’s beef is not with either himself or A. Salem but rather with the common notion of the second amendment itself. M. Coombs pointed out that if representatives were at the University of Utah, they could be carrying concealed weapons. Students have been able to do so since 2004. He quoted a September 8, 2006 decision of the Supreme Court of Utah which said that for many years, the University of Utah has enforced a policy prohibiting students, faculty and staff from possessing firearms on campus. During a 2004 general session, the Utah Legislature passed a regulation that prohibits state and local governments from enforcing any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy that any way inhibits or restricts the possession and use of firearms on either public or private property. The university argued that this clause applied to them and there was a Supreme Court case. The outcome of the court case allowed students to conceal and carry firearms at any public university in Utah. He said that mad chaos did not break out. Of the 23 incidences on public Utah college campuses involving guns, 7 involved loaded handguns and the rest involved BB and paintball guns. He and A. Salem have information on how to obtain a firearm in Utah if any one is interested. He has been citing information from Utah because it is the only example available. He pointed out that there were no incidences involving legally concealed weapons. The resolution only affects only law abiding citizens. If an individual wants to come on campus and commit a tragic act, they will do so regardless of the law. M. Coombs and A. Salem presented the resolution because they care deeply about the safety and well being of students. The sponsors believe that allowing concealed carry will increase the safety of the campus. The resolution is not radical. Our country has been a great experiment in democracy and Utah has lead the way in this instance. The resolution is viable, practical, constitutional and the right thing to do.

A. Salem said that M. Coombs said it best. He urged assembly members to take their time in considering the issue. He urged them to consider the evidence and not approach the issue emotionally.

E. Greenberg read a statement that he had prepared. “Ahmed and Mark, I was very sorry to see you propose this resolution. Mark, especially, I appreciate our brief discussion ahead of time, and your articulate and thoughtful introduction, too. But here we are, and it has finally hit me — you are 100% no-bullshit serious about this resolution, and that’s terrifying. Despite what you think, this is not an issue of self-determination, individualism, or freedom. You want to give weapons to students on university grounds, and you think that’s okay. These are students that become disoriented when they can’t get sesame-ginger dressing on their Statler salads. You want to place law enforcement in students’ hands. You envision a citizens’ brigade of like-minded freedom fighters, fighting the good fight right here on East Hill. Perhaps, on some level, you think you’re doing God’s work. On every level, I think you’re out of your deluded minds. You cite the 1 state that permits concealed carry on campus. I cite the 49 that do not. Your resolution equates to fighting fire with fire with people’s lives on the line. It is a careless proposition with reckless directives, the consequences of which produce questions of life and death for the student body. As a student, your resolution frightens me, and as a soldier, it baffles me. If you want to carry a weapon, join a national militia, as our second amendment requires, and carry all the weapons you want. That was the intention, and that is how it was written. Soldiers train for years, under the eyes of trained professionals before they are allowed to draw a weapon, under supervision, for limited use. Four years of training w/the Marine Corps and I still cannot carry a concealed weapon at Cornell. And I don’t want to. At every level of Marine Corps training, weapons mishandling meant unequivocal disenrollment. You intend to provide concealed permits to any ‘qualifying’ student who shows up to purchase a sidearm. Smart. You believe that by arming our student body you are protecting our student body. You believe that a lone shooter with an illegal weapon will be deterred by the prospect of hundreds of armed students ready to fire back. I believe that when hundreds of students fire back, with their legally concealed weapons, somebody is bound to miss. I believe that with the passage of this resolution, you fail to account for malfunctioning weapons, weapons within the reach of those with mental health disorders, and accidental discharges. I believe that with the passage of this resolution, you exhibit the politics of fear. I believe that with the passage of this resolution, a deadly accident is only a matter of time. I believe that with the passage of this resolution, a student will be killed, and you will forever live with that on your conscience. Ultimately, I believe this is a publicity stunt that, while creating a new second amendment discussion, does so in the wrong venue, and therefore does disservice to the Student Assembly, to the Cornell College Republicans, and to the whole university. Between alcohol, drugs, racism, sexism, homophobia, unchecked ambition, and selfishness, there are enough inherent dangers present on our campus that deserve our attention. Put your egos aside. Please don’t add another one.”

M. Coombs said that the allegation that a student would be killed is frankly below responding to. He thinks the facts speak for themselves. The idea that the second amendment itself and its interpretation were supposed to apply to militias is incorrect. He had three quotes from Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Monroe. Thomas Jefferson said that every citizen should be a soldier. John Adams said that arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in defense of the country against tyranny or private self-defense. James Monroe said that the right of self-defense is one of the most sacred.

A. Craig pushing his personal opinions aside confirmed that individuals have to be 21 years or older to obtain a firearm. Since there is a very large population of students that are below the age of 21 years old, he is not sure how effective concealed carry would be. Not every lecture will be protected by a student who is legally able to carry a concealed weapon. He wonders if passing the resolution will solve the issue or create more problems. He said that E. Greenberg had touched on many of these issues. He said that he would not personally feel comfortable going to class knowing that some of his fellow students may be carrying a weapon. He asked the sponsors if they had contacted Gannett to discuss what psychological impact allowing concealed carry on campus would have on students.

A. Salem said that they had not contacted Gannett but that they had contacted the police. He asked A. Craig if he felt unsafe at pyramid mall, a bar in Collegetown or just in general walking around Ithaca.

A. Craig said that he felt that A. Salem’s questions were irrelevant because the resolution applies to the Cornell campus.

There was a motion to extend the speaker’s time by two minutes. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the speaker’s time was extended by two minutes.

A. Salem thanked the assembly for giving the time to express his opinions. He said that the fear that A. Craig described is unfounded. When you leave the Cornell Campus, you do not know whether or not the person next to you has a gun.

A. Craig said that he feels that it is different because people carrying concealed weapons in Ithaca are likely older and trained in weapons use. They are likely not 21 year old students. He said that he feels that it may be important for a member of the Cornell University Police Department to come to an assembly meeting and speak on the issue. He also feels that it would be beneficial to seek out more student input. Not many students are at the meaning. He is not sure how the students present became aware of the resolution but feels that it should be further publicized before being voted on.

For these reasons, A. Craig motioned to table the resolution until next week.

M. Coombs said that he had contacted the Cornell University police department and that they were preparing a response. Since the resolution had been on the agenda under New Business, the CUPD was in the process of preparing their response for the next meeting when the resolution would have been discussed under Business of the Day.

A. Craig’s motion was seconded. There was dissent. By a vote of 12–2−1, the resolution was tabled until next week.

IX. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent. C. Slicklen adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted, Liz Patrun