UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Codes and Judicial Committee Meeting September 29, 2009

Members in attendance: Kevin Clermont, Risa Lieberwitz, Thomas Van Haaren, Ethan Warsh, Rachel Weil, John Cetta (non-voting, from UA), Mary B. Grant (non-voting, JA), Ari Epstein (non-voting, Office of Assemblies) Non-members in attendance: Andrew Brokman

1. Introductions
   • Members of the committee introduced themselves. Returning members provided some recent history of actions of the committee.
2. Election of Officers
   • The election of the chair, vice chair, and secretary were tabled until next meeting, when more members will hopefully be in attendance.
3. Discussion of Proposed Code of Conduct Change and Policy 6.4
   • The President and UA requested that the CJC revisit the following change proposed last year to the Code of Conduct (COC):
   • Title Three, Article II.A.1.c. To harass or discriminate against another person in a manner that would violate Cornell University Policy 6.4 if it were applicable.
   • Specifically, the President requested the CJC to consider adding the following footnote:
   • Actions protected under legal principles made applicable by University policy, including principles of free speech, freedom of association and religious freedom shall not constitute a violation of this provision.
   • Members discussed and debated the request and the provision. J. Cetta expressed concern that Policy 6.4 is overbroad. K. Clermont suggested putting the exceptions in Policy 6.4 not in the code, or significantly redrafting the provision.
   • Members expressed concern that 6.4 does not clearly explain how a case that potentially falls within an exception will be handled. M. Grant opined that the footnote seems to indicate an intention to follow constitutional standards. K. Clermont suggested that the footnote indicates that 6.4 should be read in light of the limitations.
   • A. Brokman expressed the desire to hold organizations accountable for discriminatory practices. R. Weil noted the importance of distinguishing between funding decisions and other disciplinary action, suggesting that funding should be revocable without breaking the code. Members discussed that the funding is beyond the purview of the COC. Members discussed the impact of other policies beyond the proscriptions in the Code of Conduct.
   • R. Lieberwitz described a number of issues that seem to be at hand: the question of should the provision itself be revisited and also of whether the code should have substantive protections for freedom of speech, religion, and association beyond this footnote. K. Clermont suggested that it would be best to let the President and administration deal with any problems in 6.4, what the CJC needs to do is figure out what to do with this provision in the COC.
   • M. Grant explained that prior to 2008, the Code made no reference to Policy 6.4.
   • R. Lieberwitz expressed difficulty finding the COC online, and that the document must be accessible to the Cornell community. R. Lieberwitz suggested separating harassment and discrimination cases to more easily address the tensions that arise is specific cases. A. Brokman agreed that discrimination should be handled differently. R. Weil suggested calling forth a campus debate on what will be protected and expressed concern about separating out discrimination. R. Lieberwitz asked when else the discrimination aspect would come into play, other than for student organizations. M. Grant explained that this was the first time such a case came before the JA and noted that the COC applies equally to student, faculty, and staff. K Clermont stated that an individual cannot discrimination against an individual, it must involve a position of authority. R. Lieberwitz inquired to the definition of harassment, noting that Policy 6.4 has different definitions); she brought up the possibility of including free speech protections for harassment.
   • The committee addressed how to proceed further with this debate in light of the Oct 14 deadline requested by the President and UA. R. Weil suggested that the CJC should first decide whether discrimination should be a violation of the code. K. Clermont suggested withdrawing last semester’s amendment with further review on if/how to prohibit discrimination; he expressed the need to define what discrimination is.
4. Set time/date for next meeting
   • The members decided to find a mutually agreeable time to schedule the next meeting via email, so those not present could be included.
5. Meeting Adjourned