Minutes
University Assembly
December 5, 2001
International Lounge, WSH
4:30 — 6:00 PM

I. Greetings and Call to Order

D. Tobias, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Carol Bader, Scott Beemer, J.S. Butler, Tyrell Haberkorn, Karsten Hueffer, Dawne Martyniak, Alan Mathios, Peggy McKee, Kristie McNamara, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt, Aaron Saathoff, Michael Sellman, Adam Schleifer, Donald Tobias

Excused: Mark Greenbaum, Pamela Hampton, Tom Mendez

Also Present: H. Mandeville, K. Nobles, Suzy Nelson, Linda Falkson, David Delchamps, Kathleen Rourke, Brian Weut ‘04, Richard Goldman ‘03

II. Reports

There were no reports.

III. Additions to the Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes

K. Hueffer pointed out that on page three, the last sentence read, “the Trustees questioned,” not “objected.” A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of October 31, 2001. The minutes were approved as amended.

V. Business of the Day

Introduction of New Members

D. Tobias stated that there were three new members of the University Assembly. Two were unable to attend the meeting due to previous engagements. They include Ellis Loew and Ken Reardon, both faculty members. The third is Gregory Pratt, an employee.

CJC Membership Proposal

D. Tobias announced that the attachment included with the agenda regarding the membership proposal is an internal document, and to be able to make amendments the University Assembly (UA) can approve, they must be made to the UA charter. He pointed out the revision to the charter that stated the same amendment as the internal document, then passed out the amendment to the charter.

Kathleen Rourke, chair of the CJC, stated that the amendment should read that representatives of the exofficio members’ departments should be present.

JS Butler remarked that there shouldn’t be an additional verb in the clause.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the charter change regarding CJC membership. The charter change was unanimously approved.

UA Charter excerpt:

8.2 The Codes and Judicial Committee shall consist of three undergraduate students, two graduate students; three faculty members, and three employees. One-half of the seated membership shall constitute a quorum. All members shall serve two-year terms. Terms shall be staggered.

Changed to read:

8.2 The Codes and Judicial Committee shall consist of three undergraduate students, two graduate students; three faculty members, and (three) four employees, one of whom would be an active member of the CU Police. One-half of the seated membership shall constitute a quorum. All members shall serve two-year terms. Terms shall be staggered. Ex-officio members may include the Judicial Administrator, Judicial Codes Counselor, and Counsel’s Office. Ex-officio members are non-voting.

• Deletions appear in parenthesis. Additions appear in bold.

CJC Hazing Definition Proposal

D. Tobias asked K. Hueffer to introduce the proposal because he had attended the CJC meeting the previous day.

K. Hueffer explained that the original definition that was brought to the UA was amended and sent back to the CJC. After this, a new version was sent out, and this brought about discussion on the listserv. He was mainly concerned about the way “mental distress” was used in the original definition. He was able to attend the CJC meeting and voice the concerns he had, and the concerns he had heard from other UA members. He felt the definition passed by the CJC on 12/4 was acceptable, and was somewhere in the middle.

S. Beemer voiced his continuing concern about the section including “mental distress,” but he agrees this definition is much better.

G. Pratt asked if there is a definition of “reasonable person” in the Campus Code of Conduct.

L. Falkson stated there is a legal standard of what exactly a reasonable person is.

G. Pratt also asked if the word community should appear in this definition of hazing.

L. Falkson said this is implicit in the reasonable person standard.

A. Schleifer thought this was an improvement, although he wondered if the use of examples was open ended or limited. He asked if all the groups that were present could speak on the matter because he had been approached by numerous undergraduates asking him not to let this pass. He wanted to know why he should pass it.

M. Sellman supports what A. Schleifer had already stated. He questioned if undergraduates i.e. fraternities, athletic teams, etc., had been given the chance to review this definition of hazing.

S. Nelson wondered why students were so upset when organizations such as fraternities and sororities have much stricter guidelines about hazing that they must sign as an organization.

M. Sellman answered by saying it is a new standard that students must abide by.

S. Nelson reminded the University Assembly that hazing is not specifically found anywhere in Title 3 of the Code, therefore Cornell is silent on this issue.

L. Fallkson established that in actuality nothing will change by adding this definition of hazing to the Code. What this definition does is to accurately describe hazing as what it is, rather than calling it harassment, or theft. She also pointed out that when incoming students start at Cornell, she believes hazing cannot be discussed without it being defined.

D. Delchamps cautioned the group to look at this from a historical perspective. He believes that people need to be taught that it’s not OK for certain things to happen to them. This can be seen in history through spousal abuse for instance, that was once thought to be a private matter. Now this has become a public concern, just like hazing should become. It’s going to take time for the climate to change. He would be the first one to state that he thinks the fewer laws, the better, but in this case historical events like spousal abuse and domestic violence should not be kept private, and neither should hazing.

A. Mathios inquired how this would effect the school and the community. He could see that in the future this could help the fraternity system rather than hinder it.

K. Rourke would also like a student perspective considering this is just a clarification of what’s already not allowed.

M. Sellman is of the opinion that this definition only makes the issue more vague instead of clarifying it. He wanted to know what “intimidation” was, and how does this do anything other than make people more anxious and nervous about the topic at hand. He also thinks that this is just another piece of legislation handed down by the administration.

Richard Goldman, a junior and member of a fraternity here at Cornell, pointed out that as a student on the Hazing Task Force, he felt that this definition is appropriate. He also stated that he was a fraternity member that had gone through a hazing incident. He still has scars from it and feels it is imperative that this is passed. He believes that by not passing this definition, the University is condoning hazing. He wanted to know if it was going to take a death to prove just how imperative it is. He said that this is a good learning tool.

A. Schleifer recognized that hazing does occur, and the idea of such incidents is not foreign to him. However, many of the things that may be considered hazing are covered under topics such as harassment and assault in the Code. Though this may seem slightly menacing, he brought the example of the military to the table. He stated that the military has probably hazed the most out of any organization by this definition, and this is condoned by several laws.

Brian Weut, a student here, did not agree with the opinions of Adam and Michael, and believes the hazing definition is needed.

A. Saathoff disagreed with several of the comments made earlier, and feels that there are several reasons to pass this definition.

JS Butler went to a college that banned fraternities all together because of the matter of hazing. He felt that this was completely justifiable and should be the action of more colleges and universities.

K. Rourke reminded the UA that this is simply more for the pledge itself, it is not against the organizations. She also said that the CJC is not a representative of the administration, it is compiled of students, faculty, and employees and is a standing committee of the UA.

M. Sellman thinks that the definition is good to encompass severe situations, but it also seems to go beyond that and it attacks less severe situations. Also, he believes no pledge is going to read the Campus Code of Conduct and think to themselves that they can use this definition.

D. Tobias agrees that no pledge will probably read this, however the fraternity officers who plan the pledging period must read all regulations dealing with this, so they will read it. This is what he is counting on, and in his opinion, this is what will make this work.

M. Sellman disagreed with the philosophy behind this response because he thinks that responsible fraternity officers will read these guidelines, and those who already haze will continue to haze because they don’t read the guidelines, or at least don’t abide by them.

D. Tobias reminded the UA that this is what fraternity officers are charged with, and if they fail to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, then they will be brought up on charges of hazing.

G. Pratt wanted to make two points. First of all, he wanted to point out that this would create awareness about hazing. Secondly, he feels that this definition is being mischaracterized as a specifically Greek issue, when in reality it applies to many different groups.

A. Schleifer made the example of an activity such as a captain of a team requiring a team that was not working to their potential to run wind sprints at midnight, which he felt was not hazing. However, under this definition it would be considered as such. He doesn’t feel that this definition protects anyone, but if it does pass, he’d like to make an amendment to it. He doesn’t feel that the definition encompasses the idea of abusiveness, and it should include the word abusive.

JS Butler stated that sports teams here are not professional sports teams, and a 12 am practice is hazing.

D. Delchamps wanted to point out that Cornell is acting like the police of 1975 in regards to domestic violence by not having recognized hazing as a practice that needs to be dealt with as a community.

M. Sellman realizes that it needs to be dealt with, however he still feels that this definition is vague and needless.

K. Hueffer believes that this is needed, but would like to know if this should be sent out to campus groups. This way it can be used as an educational tool, and it will allow for input from the rest of the campus.

L. Falkson is not opposed to the suggestion, however she feels like she’s been doing just that since February 2001. Also, as the information was dispersed, there were more new members added to the Hazing Task Force. These members included representatives from athletics, Greek organizations, the Dean of Students, and more.

P. McKee strongly believes that this is a needed definition on campus. She is not judging any groups, this is not just for Greek organizations. It could be used as a good tool to educate the campus as well.

T. Haberkorn perceives this as an excellent chance for the UA to use its power to support something for the community.

S. Beemer agrees completely with the proposal, but also thinks that it should be turned to the community for their support.

K. Hueffer sees this as a chance that won’t hurt the definition, but something that will help the definition, as well as make it stronger.

K. McNamera also agrees, and would like to see what the community has to say about this.

S. Nelson stated that this definition is about our standards, and our community and our support for the community members. She believes that this is very important to pass, although it would also be a good idea to take it to the community. However this could be done after it is passed.

K. McNamera said that she doesn’t understand what the issue is with taking it to the community first.

A. Schleifer wanted to present two motions. The first was to subject this definition to a referendum.

P. McKee explained that she has a real problem with this. She believes that the UA is supposed to look at each individual’s rights. If the majority votes on this, an individual’s rights could be overlooked. She is not opposed to taking it out to the public for discussion, but not to be voted on by everyone.

M. Sellman agrees with A. Schleifer . To speak to P. McKee’s comments, he stated that this is not a usual topic and it does need to be taken to the community.

A. Mathios explained that at a referendum, experts are brought in to discuss the topic at hand, which is exactly what had been done in the UA meetings and CJC meetings concerning this definition. Therefore, he felt the UA was qualified to make this vote.

A. Saathoff stated that he was not in favor of a referendum. He believes that the voter turn-out is too low on campus, and this would subject this matter to politicking.

D. Martyniak said that she thinks the information is already out on campus.

JS Butler moved the previous question.

A. Saathoff seconded the motion.

M. Sellman objected.

There was a vote to see if the movement to the previous question could take place. The vote passed 12 yes, 3 no, 0 abstained.

The motion to subject the definition to a referendum was then voted on. The vote failed 3 yes, 12 no, 0 abstained.

A. Schleifer presented his second motion. He wanted to make an amendment to the definition. He’d like to add abusive to the definition because in his opinion abusive means a behavior which threatens; it is a violation of one’s right as an individual, and it’s an inequality of power, which entails dominance. He feels that this would give the definition more structure.

K. Rourke does not see how this is not covered under the definition already presented.

S. Beemer wants to know whether something can be hazing without being abusive.

L. Falkson agrees with K. Rourke, and does not see how this helps the definition.

G. Pratt does not agree with the addition of abusive because in his opinion every individual should be protected before they’re ever abused.

A. Saathoff stated that “abusive” does not clarify the definition.

P. McKee agreed with A. Saathoff.

D. Martyniak does not believe that abusive should be included in the definition of hazing. She believes the way it has been defined is inclusive of this idea.

D. Tobias moved the UA to a vote on the amendment made by A. Schleifer. The vote failed 3 yes, 12 no, 0 abstained.

M. Sellman motioned to postpone the vote on this definition until the February meeting. He went on to explain that if they voted on it in January or February, they could still catch rush time, and it would also allow for the dispersal of the definition around campus.

G. Pratt seconded the motion.

L. Falkson stated again that many groups have already been involved in the process of creating this definition and it has been dispersed to many groups on campus. In her opinion, postponing the vote would only hinder what the definition can do for the community.

J. Mt. Pleasant opposed the postponement.

G. Pratt supports the definition, however he feels that it couldn’t hurt to make sure the campus is informed of the definition.

A. Schleifer reasons with the UA that this definition should at least be an educational tool if it is not going to be voted on by the entire campus.

K. Rourke opposed the postponement and believes the UA should vote on it now.

D. Tobias moves the UA to a vote regarding the motion to postpone. The motion fails 5 yes, 10 no.

J. Mt. Pleasant moved to the previous question.

S. Beemer seconded the motion.

M. Sellman objected.

There is a vote of whether to move the previous question or not. The vote passed 10 yes, 5 no.

A. Schleifer makes a motion to postpone to the January meeting. The motion failed 4 yes, 9 no, 1 abstain.

There is a vote on the definition. The vote passed 12 yes, 3 no.

VI. Adjournment

D. Tobias, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:20pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Trina Nobles