Dear Charlie:

I acknowledge and thank you for forwarding the University Assembly (UA) Resolution #14 that proposes to modify provisions of the Campus Code of Conduct dealing with harassment. I greatly appreciate the careful thought that you and your UA colleagues have devoted to this vitally important and complex issue. For the reasons indicated below, I accept most of what you propose and ask that you reconsider other aspects.

Cornell’s current policy dealing with non-discrimination is broad and effective: it bans all forms of legally prohibited discrimination in all University educational programs and activities and employment. This non-discrimination policy was adopted by the highest body of the University, the Cornell Board of Trustees, and has university-wide application in all policy-related documents and agreements. The current policy prominently appears in university catalogues, brochures, handbooks, other policy documents, contracts and agreements. And several university offices make it their business to enforce the policy including the Offices of Workforce Diversity and Inclusion, University Counsel, Human Resources, and Student and Academic Services.

Since the Trustees-approved policy already encompasses all categories of “legally prohibited” discrimination, it is not clear to me (and presumably would not be clear to the Board) why the UA wishes to add several other categories of non-discrimination. The University is not empowered to formulate public policy; and should not add prohibitions that exceed those adopted by authorized federal, state, and local bodies.

The UA’s proposal to incorporate more specific references to those forms of discrimination prohibited by the University’s non-discrimination policy into the Campus Code provision covering harassment augments worthy efforts to enforce compliance. So, for this reason I support it. However, the UA’s quest to expand the categories of non-discrimination in the Campus Code provision � by adding “height,” “ancestry,” “immigration or citizenship status,” “religious practice,” “socioeconomic status,” and “weight” � extends well beyond the Trustees-approved policy.* So, I do not accept this aspect of the UA resolution, and consequently I ask the UA to reconsider it.

Sincerely,

David J. Skorton

• These additional classifications appear in the criminal law of New York State and the City of Ithaca, and specifically pertain to “hate crimes”; criminal acts based on bias broadly defined can lead to increased penalties.

David J. Skorton
President
Cornell University
300 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607–255–5201