In an e-mail poll, the executive committee of the University Assembly has unanimously supported this resolution. Charles Walcott

Dear University Assembly Executive Committee,

On April 4, 2011, the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) circulated a “Dear colleague” letter (OCR letter) clarifying what it believes Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. �� 1681 et seq., (Title IX) and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 106 command of schools receiving federal education money, including Cornell, regarding resolution of disputes involving sexual harassment and violence in the student community. A group of University officials was convened to assess the university’s compliance with the legal obligations of Title IX as the OCR letter describes them.

On April 22, the group issued a memorandum (April 22 letter) advising the Codes and Judicial Committee (the CJC) of changes required to the Campus Code of Conduct (the Code) and to University Policy 6.4, Prohibited Discrimination, Protected Status (Including Sexual) Harassment, and Bias Activity (Policy 6.4) in order to comply with thelegal requirements described in the OCR letter. The April 22 letter also advised the CJC to “consider whether the changes apply only to complaints covered by Title IX or to all cases covered by the Campus Code.” On April 27, the University Assembly (the Assembly) approved motions authorizing two of the changes recommended in the April 22 letter (April 27 motion) and clarifying that the Executive Committee of the Assembly (the Executive Committee) could approve additional changes as needed to comply with the law.

On April 29, the CJC met to discuss the issue and identified a number of concerns not yet addressed by the April 22 letter or the April 27 motion:

• the April 27 motion does not address all concerns identified in the April 22 letter,
• the April 27 motion introduces different balance between rights of victims and the accused for a limited set of offenses which seems logistically incompatible with what the Code provides for all other offenses,
• the OCR letter permits the establishment of separate grievance procedures from the Code, such as Policy 6.4, that should be considered as an alternative to significantly altering the Code,
• the nature and extent of changes required to the Code depend significantly on the scope of revisions to Policy 6.4 or another policy to achieve compliance,
• the role of the Assembly and the CJC in approving changes to the Code, as well as the lack of overlap in membership between the two, requires representation from both groups in discussions regarding proposed changes.

We therefore respectfully request that a working group be empowered by the university administration to consider a separate grievance procedure for Title IX complaints apart from the Code. We ask that the CJC and the Assembly both be permitted to appoint at least one representative each to such a committee. Such representatives should communicate with the full membership of the CJC and the Assembly as much as possible regarding interim findings and recommendations. Such representatives should be identified as stakeholders and promptly receive a copy of any impact statements issued regarding revision or issuance of university policies on the subject. Finally, while we recognize the need for prompt interim adoption of recommended changes, we strongly urge responsible executives to wait until the resumption of classes and return of students in September before proceeding with a permanent overhaul. The scope of changes proposed requires broadcommunity consultation that will not be possible during the remainder of the semester or summer session.

We propose that the Executive Committee endorse and support these recommendations and work with responsible executives to ensure a sustained and productive engagement of our committee in the topic as issues are developed. We believe the Assembly, with its newly revisedcharter, is positioned to provide excellent advice on this important subject, provided sufficient time and resources.

Respectfully submitted,

The University Assembly Codes and Judicial Committee