Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 25, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:46P.M.

II. Roll Call

Assembly Members Present: Vincent Andrews, Chris Basil, Nathaniel Baker, Andrew Brokman, Asa Craig, Emily Cusick, Luis De Lencquesaing, Emlyn Diakow, Lauren Engelmyer, Michael Heinz, Nikki Junewicz, Nikhil Kumar, Alex Latella, Ryan Lavin, Mike McDermott, Greg Mezey, Tony Miller, Scott Purdy, Natalie Raps, Rammy Salem, Octavio Sandoval, Eric Shannon, Becca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Yuan Yao

Liaisons Present: Sanjiv Tata

III. Oath of Office

N. Baker, O. Sandoval, E. Shannon, E. Cusick, Y. Yao, N. Raps, and A. Brokman took the Student Assembly Oath of Office. The Oath of Office reads, “In view of the trust the Cornell community has vested in me, as well as my personal sense of honor, I,---------------, do solemnly affirm to fulfill my responsibilities as a student-elected representative. I will engage in open and honest debate in a process where I am guided by truth and fairness. I will never purposely misrepresent facts in an effort to achieve my goals. If a conflict of interest arises, I will relinquish my right to participate in the decision making process. I will seek out and voice effectively the interests and concerns of the student body, address the issues of my fellow students, and strive to improve the quality of life at Cornell for all students.”

IV. Approval of the Minutes — September 11, 2008; September 18, 2008

T. Miller called for acclimation regarding both the September 11, 2008 and the September 18, 2008 Student Assembly meeting minutes. There were multiple seconds. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from both meetings were approved.

V. Open Microphone

R. Lavin asked if any members of the audience wished to speak on items not on the agenda.

No one came forward.

VI. Announcements/Reports

GPSA Update — Vince Andrews

V. Andrews said that he attended the previous GPSA meeting and gave a brief overview of the meeting.

R. Lavin asked if the GPSA had appointed a liaison to the S.A.

V. Andrews said that a liaison has yet to be appointed.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for V. Andrews.

There were none.

CBS at Cornell Announcement — Nikki Junewicz

N. Junewicz announced that on the next Friday, September 3, the CBS The Early Show will be broadcasting live from Olin caf�. She hopes that all assembly members will come out for the taping and represent Cornell.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for N. Junewicz.

There were none.

Leaders Sustainability Forum Announcement — Emlyn Diakow

E. Diakow made an announcement regarding the Leaders Sustainability Forum. Student leaders have been discussing holding such a forum to bring together all those interested in pursuing the goal of making campus more sustainable. She encouraged representatives to start thinking about the changes they would like to see and about how long these changes would take to implement. She and M. Walsh hope that the entire assembly will be involved in the forum. Those interested should speak with her further. The forum will be held on October 18, right before campus sustainability day and the trustee weekend.

Go Cross Campus Ivy League Championship — Chris Basil

C. Basil informed the assembly that he has received info about the Go Cross Campus Ivy League Championship and online role playing game. The game would be similar to a massive risk game between Ivy League Schools. In the past engineering students have really gotten into it. If any representatives want more info about it, they can speak with him.

Elections Summary - Mike McDermott

M. McDermott congratulated all the candidates and said that the selection was amazing. There were no challenges. Hesaid that A. Epstein, Office of the Assemblies, needs to receive a standing ovation for his work regarding the new elections system. A. Epstein worked on the system on his own time. The system works extremely well and outside of uportal. He also thanked other assembly members for their involvement in the recent elections. He announced that 2100 were involved in voting but that 300 of these people never cast their final ballots. E. Shannon, who spent no money on his campaign, received the most votes out of any candidate. For the reference of all assembly members, he gave a brief overview of the Election Committee timeline for the future. In mid-October the committee will be having a meeting to evaluate how the elections went as well as to discuss the elections rules. In early November, the committee will draft the rules for the Spring elections. They committee will present the new rules to the entire assembly before the end of the semester. He asked representatives, especially those who were just elected, to contact him with questions or suggestions.

R. Lavin commended M. McDermott and the Elections Committee for their hard work regarding elections. He has been on the assembly for four years and does not believe that elections have, in his experience, ever gone smoother.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for M. McDermott.

There were none.

VII. Business of the Day

R.6 Compliance with University Policy 4.10 — Nikhil Kumar, Rammy Salem and Nicole Rivera

R. Lavin gave a brief overview of how the process of discussing and voting on the resolution would proceed so that community members present were aware of the process.

R. Salem said that Resolution 6 was introduced and discussed at last’s week meeting. Basically, the sponsors are asking that the word Cornell be taken out the Cornell Review since they believe that the publication is not in compliance Policy 4.10. He said that he wanted to hammer the point home that the resolution is not about freedom of speech. He read the first amendment. The resolution is not in violation of the first amendment and the sponsors are not questioning the existence of the Cornell Review on campus. The sponsors maintain the importance of freedom of speech even if it is hateful. That being said, Cornell is a private institution that has the right to control the use of its name. The article published in the Cornell Review has caused a lot of emotional distress and created a hostile environment. Members of representatives’ respective constituencies are upset and some form of action has to be taken. Right now, the sponsors feel that the necessary step to be taken is to pass the resolution. The university has the right to remove its name from the title of a student publication. Allowing the Cornell name to be used in conjunction with such hurtful language can damage the Cornell brand. People may assume that Cornell endorses articles written in the Cornell Review. Will you take the necessary steps to protect the students that you represent?

N. Rivera said that she just wanted to emphasize that this is not an isolated incident. For example on April 17, 1997, the Cornell Review wrote another article degrading particular students at Cornell. She found this information out through the Daily Sun. There have been several other such articles that stereotype and degrade individual groups on campus. So, this is something that has been going on for over ten years. She also found an expressed student concern from 1998 on Dr. Uncle Ezra that reads, “I can’t believe that the university lets this paper spread its bigotry and ignorance around campus. I know that the paper is just a misrepresentation of people who call themselves “conservatives”, but what about the young freshmen who don’t know any better? There are people at Cornell who have never seen a black person or another minority in their life, and they may take the Review’s opinion to be the truth. This is how a pattern or ignorance continues.” She urged assembly members to really consider how Cornell’s brand is being hurt and the values that Cornell stands for. The review if violating Policy 4.10 and it is important that the policy be enforced.

N. Kumar thanked all community members in the audience for attending the meeting and for making themselves available to participate in the discussion. The assembly meeting is exactly the right forum for this discussion to occur. The assembly has the opportunity to uphold the Cornell statement of diversity, take a stand and represent the undergraduate community.

R. Lavin opened up the speaker’s list.

R. Stein thanked community members for their attendance. She completely disagrees with the sponsors. She strongly believes in the first amendment. It is one of the greatest things about the country and the university. People can express themselves. People have the right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately people’s feelings also get hurt. People get offended every single day. However, that does not mean that we should not still support the first amendment. She is offended daily at Cornell. She is offended because people make fun of blonds, ILR students, Jews, people from Long Island, sorority girls, transfers. The list goes on and on. But that is not the point. The point is that everyone has the right to express themselves and Cornell fully supports this belief. Removing the name Cornell from the Cornell Review says that we do not support the right of the review to say what they believe. Additionally, the articles published in the review should in no way create a hostile environment. They are not meant to alienate or humiliate anyone on campus. They articles are clearly sarcastic. They were meant in jest. The review also makes fun of wealthy liberals, poor liberals, liberals who come from all different backgrounds. This is very clearly a sarcastic argument. Removing the name of Cornell from the Cornell Review says that Cornell University and the Student Assembly do not support the right to free speech on the grounds of the university or anywhere else. It is absolutely integral that the assembly does not support the resolution for this reason.

Steve Shiffrin, Professor of Law specializing in the first amendment, said that he does not believe the passage of the resolution would cause much harm. But he doesn’t think that it would do much good either. It may be good to incorporate in some way that the assembly is opposed to speech that creates a hostile environment and that you want something done about it. He said that he reads Policy 4.10 and does not see that the policy allows the university to remove the name Cornell from the publication title. The language of the policy is entirely vague because it says supports a more diverse and inclusive community. He would not want every publication in the university to have to satisfy this sanction because it is difficult to qualify. He believes that the Campus Code of Conduct should be amended to prohibit various types of racist speech in the community. The first amendment does not apply to Cornell University. The university instead accepts freedom of speech. Cornell University is not required to follow the dictates of Justice Scalia and his band of federalist society cohorts. People can differ and Cornell has the right to make its own judgment about what should be done when there is a conflict between freedom of speech and the creation of a hostile environment. A professor of law at Georgetown University has argued in the Michigan Law Review that speech with a message of racial inferiority aimed at historically oppressed groups is hateful should be outlawed. He cited other university arguments. He said he doesn’t have time to talk about these limits. His point is this, the university and the assembly needs to consider what kind of conduct should be outlawed in campus conduct and if the publication violates that code then remove the name. By going after the name instead of going after the conduct, the assembly is not doing enough.

O. Sandoval said that last Saturday himself, N. Baker, R. Salem and some others attended a meeting at Ujamaa. Individuals present at the meeting emphasized that students are in a hostile environment and that minorities are being targeted on a frequent basis. Those who feel victimized trying to respond through the Bias Response Program but have found that it is systematically flawed. He does not feeling that removing Cornell from the review title will solve the problem of a hostile environment.

T. Miller said that he asked the sponsors of the resolution to send him any relevant documents pertaining to the resolution prior to the meeting. He received one article. He found the article very humorous. It reminded him of something that we would refer to as satire. He said that he did not receive any other article from the past ten years. He would have been happy to review such articles. One of the sponsors mentioned that these are not the values that Cornell University stands for. He thought that Cornell University stood for the ability to have an open dialogue and to discuss a plethora of ideas bringing them to the intellectual table. He is curious as to whether the sponsors believe that any other groups tarnish the Cornell brand as egregiously as they claim the Cornell Review does. He is wondering why the sponsors chose to evaluate the policy through the review.

R. Salem said that the sponsors view the resolution as a first step. It is true that the Bias Response Protocol also needs to be looked over. The Campus Code of Conduct also needs to be revised as Professor Shiffrin just discussed. The sponsors choose the Cornell Review because students felt that the review had the most powerful and offensive impact. The resolution could be the first step in reviewing other publications as well. Also, if the sponsors really were against freedom of speech they would be challenging the right of the Cornell Review to exist on campus.

Eddie Herron, Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Review, said bringing the issue of Policy 4.10 before the assembly without first consulting the review is not the best way to handle the situation. The resolution is not the best way to handle the issue.

V. Andrews said that he does not feel that satire can be used as an excuse to write hurtful and offensive language. If the S.A. chooses to adopt this resolution or address an issue in this manner where does the assembly stop? As the professor noted there are other ways of addressing the issue. He does not think that the resolution is the best response.

A. Craig said that he was sort of hurt by the articles in the review. He wonders if the opinions expressed in the review are what students think of him. Individuals have to be careful about how satire and jokes come across in an academic setting. The issue needs to be addressed and the assembly really does need to consider the Cornell brand. What would a prospective freshman think if they picked up the Cornell Review? He emphasized that it is important to explore other solutions as the professor noted.

Rachel Quigley, 2009, said that by passing the resolution the assembly would be saying that every other publication on campus is allowed to identify itself with the Cornell except for the Cornell Review. This is abridging freedom of speech. She noted that there are many uses of the Cornell name, such as the Cornell Barber shop, that are not affiliated with Cornell. If there is an issue with students who have never seen a minority in their life, Cornell should be looking at de facto segregation not taking the name Cornell out of the review. The assembly could more wisely spend its time on other solutions.

N. Rivera said that it is a privilege to use the Cornell name and that that privilege can be revoked. Those who violate the policy should be subject to having the Cornell name revoked.

R. Salem noted that all independent student organizations are required to seek approval for all uses of the Cornell name or logo.

L. De Lencquesaing said that it is important for provocative publications to exist on campus. The underlying debates on program housing and affirmative action are important. Although it is important that the review engages in provocative discussion, the assembly should condemn the use of such horrible words. It is very important for the people of the Cornell Review to be reminded that you have to teach civility. Please your rights to provocate and your rights to put ideas on the table with a little bit more responsibility.

N. Rivera emphasized how much the language in the Cornell Review hurt her.

Marlena Fontes, 2010, said that racism is not a political viewpoint. It is not natural and has real performative effects for students on campus. She has a friend from the Dominican Republic who left campus because he felt that the Cornell environment was so hostile and racist. When he came back to campus, the first thing he saw was the Cornell Review article. A duty of the assembly is to make sure that students on the campus feel safe, protected and welcome. Harassment should not be tolerated on this campus. Having the Cornell name in the Cornell Review is clearly a violation of university ethics and policies. The assembly should consider revising the Code of Conduct. The symbolic power of the S.A. in saying no to racism, in saying no to a hostile environment, in saying no to out of control hostile bigotry is in representatives’ hands. Representations should be saying yes to a safe environment for all students. She hopes that all representatives make the right decision for their fellow students.

R. Stein, point of information, requested that the portion of the article in contention be read.

R. Lavin said that all representatives were sent the article and for efficiencies sake he would have to assume that all members have read it.

R. Smith said that there is obviously an issue on campus and that it is very important that the assembly discuss the issue. She is however not sure that the resolution is the correct way of addressing it. Removing Cornell from the name of the Cornell Reviewdoes not solve any underlying problems. She feels that the resolution is great way of starting the dialogue and applauded the sponsors for bringing it before the assembly.

N. Kumar said that it is important to remember that although there is an underlying problem many students were extremely hurt by the article in the review.

E. Cusick said that the Cornell Progressive exists as well. It may be troublesome to freshman that the conservative paper is being monitored by the assembly whereas the liberal one is not.

Zachary, 2011, AAP, said that he is an angry minority. But according to Cornell Review, because he is angry about the plight of African Americans in this country, he is bitter, ignorant and nasty. That’s outrageous. He read aloud a statement the assembly had drafted in the past few years regarding diversity and support for an open and inclusive environment. How is anything that the Cornell Review says constructive? The only purpose of the language is to harass and offend people like him. Representatives have the trust of the community in their hands. They are supposed to care. He asked how R. Stein could possible equate remarks made about ILR students or blondes with the oppression of blacks and other minorities. The article in question is not founded in truth. Such abusive language for no purposes other than to amuse should not be tolerated. If the resolution is not passed, it indicates that such language is acceptable and will likely lead to a slippery slope. The assembly needs to support its own commitment to diversity.

N. Junewicz said that the argument is not about freedom of speech. She thinks that it is based on the principle that what you say does affect how people feel. A prime example of this, even though she can’t believe she is bringing it up, is Juicy Campus last year. Although the site was perfectly legal, it really did hurt people. She said that as Cornell students, it is our responsibility to build community and even though speech is a personal choice, it is still something that the assembly needs to realize and take into consideration. It is important to be sensitive of other people.

A. Craig said that judging from the sentiments expressed so far, the resolution as is probably won’t stand. He said that he would be motioning to amend the resolution. The final be it therefore resolved clause currently reads, “Be it further resolved, That the Student Assembly recommend that the Office of the Dean of Students review the Cornell Review’s compliance with Policy 4.10 and report its findings to the Student Assembly within a reasonable period of time.” He would like the statement to read, “Be it further resolved, That the Student Assembly believes that the Cornell Review is not in compliance with Policy 4.10 and strongly urges that the Office of the Dean of Students to collaborate with the Student Assembly, the University Assembly, and greater campus community to revise the Campus Code of Conduct to prevent future hurtful terminology.”

R. Lavin confirmed that the sponsors of the resolution found the amendment friendly.

There were multiple dissents.

R. Lavin opened up a speaker’s list on the amendment.

R. Stein said that she believes that A. Craig’s amendment is a very positive one but that it changes the voice of the resolution. She believes that the amendment should be discussed as a separate resolution at a separate meeting. It is a wonderful idea that deserves the assembly’s full attention. She also believes that the resolution should be more strongly worded and propose more concrete action.

T. Miller said that he is 21 years old and can deal with “hurtful terminology,” the phrase used in A. Craig’s amendment. He would never vote in favor of a resolution that took away a groups right to offend him.

R. Lavin described the process of discussing an amendment and asked Dean Hubbell to address the issue from the perspective of the Office of the Dean of Students.

Dean Hubbell said that he thinks that A. Craig’s proposal is overall a good concept. He noted that there already exist some organizations that could be of assistance on the matter including the Diversity Council and the Diversity Working Group. He believes that one way to handle the issue would be to take it to these committees for debate and discussion. He also noted that the under the Campus Code of Conduct, the President of the university is authorized and encouraged to appoint a standing committee to study and report to the President on significant policy issues concerning the protection of freedom of expression on campus. The committee should study any issue presented to it by the President. It should also receive petitions or inquiries from members of University community, but should limit its attention to issues that involve important matters of a policy nature. He said that he would argue that the issue currently being discussed involves important matters of a policy nature. He emphasized that there are several avenues that exist which he believes the assembly, community members and the Office of the Dean of Students could move forward to.

L. Engelmyer said she completely agrees with A. Craig’s amendment but feels that the current wording is too vague. She likes the idea of committee because it emphasizes that assembly members are getting together to work on addressing the issue as well as inviting students to coordinate with them.

A. Craig, in addressing R. Stein, said that it would not be wise for the assembly to put off discussing the resolution for another week. In response to T. Miller, he said that just because you don’t find a comment offensive doesn’t mean that other students don’t. In response to the amendment being vague, multiple avenues currently exist for addressing the issue. The assembly is not currently sure which avenue would be most appropriate to pursue. The assembly can figure out the best path after passing the resolution in support of the effort.

R. Salem emphasized that no action has been taken on the issue even though it has been occurring for year. He called to question on the amendment.

R. Stein dissented. She feels that other representatives were misquoting and misrepresenting her statement. She agrees with L. Engelmyer and other. The assembly should not quickly pass something to pass it. Her proposal was to create a completely new resolution urging action.

By a hand vote, the motion to call to question on the amendment failed. Debate on the amendment would continue.

R. Smith said that she thinks that the amendment is really representative of what the assembly has been discussing. The amendment represents a starting point and is a good thing to pass now. A resolution proposing more concrete action can be presented next week.

C. Basil yielded his time to R. Stein.

R. Stein reiterated that the amendment changes the feeling of the resolution. Representatives should be given the time to talk to their constituents and ask questions regarding the issue. A concrete resolution should be drafted. There is no point in passing a resolution that is very touchy feely this week when a more concrete one can be proposed next week. She genuinely believes that A. Craig’s amendment is a good one and that it should therefore be made into its own resolution.

V. Andrews said that he does not see how passing the resolution restricts the assembly from proposing another more concrete resolution in the future. He feels that the amendment needs to be passed to demonstrate that the assembly can take action and that the assembly does care. The assembly can engage in more formal action by working with the administration to amend the Code of Conduct. He hopes that representatives will vote to vote on the amendment.

L. De Lencquesaing said that passing the amendment would show that the assembly cares and understands the feelings of those individuals present in the audience that have been hurt and that they are not believing in the assembly for nothing. After passing the current resolution, the assembly can always engage in further action.

R. Stein said that this is pointless and touchy feely. She yielded her time to T. Miller.

T. Miller said that if this is a discussion that the Cornell community wishes to have, then the assembly ought to have the discussion. His problem is that this is an amendment to a resolution concerned with University Policy 4.10 and the Cornell Review. If the assembly wishes to have an overarching discussion about the broader issue on campus, it should do so in a proper way through a committee or open forum. The assembly should not be badgering and scapegoating a single organization. The issue needs to be discussed but should be done so without badgering a single organization.

R. Salem emphasized that the Cornell Review attracted attention and is the reason that the sponsors are before the assembly.

L. Engelmyer said that is important for representatives to demonstrate that the assembly can take action. She favors the idea of establishing a committee because it holds people accountable.

A. Craig said other hurtful agents could be added to the amendment if representative suggest them. The resolution is aimed at assisting the community.

L. De Lencquesaing said that the assembly is putting the article and the use of hurtful language as opposed to the review on the spot. In passing the amendment, the assembly is condemning the use of such language not a specific organization and supporting further discussion of the racial issue. Details of action can be worked out in the near future.

R. Salem asked that A. Craig’s amendment be repeated.

C. Basil repeated the amendment.

R. Salem suggested adding in a committee following S.A., U.A. and greater community as L. Engelmyer had proposed. The Be if further resolved clause now reads, “ ”Be it further resolved, That the Student Assembly believes that the Cornell Review is not in compliance with Policy 4.10 and strongly urges that the Office of the Dean of Students collaborate with the Student Assembly, the University Assembly, and greater campus community in a committee to revise the Campus Code of Conduct to prevent future hurtful terminology.” He then motioned to change the word hurtful to hateful.

R. Lavin confirmed that A. Craig found the amendment to his amendment friendly.

C. Basil repeated the amendment which reads, “ ”Be it further resolved, That the Student Assembly believes that the Cornell Review is not in compliance with Policy 4.10 and strongly urges that the Office of the Dean of Students collaborate with the Student Assembly, the University Assembly, and greater campus community in a committee to revise the Campus Code of Conduct to prevent future hateful terminology.”

C. Basil called to question on the amendment. There were multiple seconds.

O. Sandoval dissented.

R. Lavin said that the amendment was discussed and the assembly would move to a vote.

C. Basil said that O. Sandoval could motion to overrule the chair which requires a 2/3 vote.

O. Sandoval, point of information, said that he wanted to understand how this committee would be different than the other avenues that currently exist for the assembly to pursue.

R. Lavin said that since the amendment was recent he would open up a short speaker’s list on the issue O. Sandoval just raised.

A. Craig said that an ad-hoc committee has the ability to look in to the cause and to see the issue out. Those students who are interested can get together to pursue the issue further and explore the alternative avenues raised at the meeting.

R. Salem said that the amendment clearly states that the aim of the committee will be to revise the Code of Conduct. The code will be revised. He called to question on the amendment.

There were multiple seconds. R. Stein dissented.

R. Stein said that she feels that O. Sandoval’s point was a very important one and one that emphasizes the importance of drafting a separate and well thought out resolution. She called to question.

There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent.

By a roll call vote, the amendment passed.

R. Lavin said that the original speaker’s list would be resumed.

C. Basil said that he would like to yield his time to a member of the Cornell Review.

A representative from the review said that somehow the resolution changed from removing Cornell from the title of the review to a full blown discussion of racism on campus.

A. Craig said that the amendment did not generate a new resolution because the initial subject led to a discussion through which the assembly decided to promote open and honest dialogue.

A. Latella said that he completely agrees with forming a new resolution. The original intent, which the title indicates, has been changed. Out of respect for all those who came out today and want to see changes, a new resolution should be formed.

A freshman member of the audience said that she does not find the issue amusing at all. She entered a hostile environment upon coming to Cornell. She entered Cornell as not an angry minority but has since become one. She finds the Cornell Review completely offensive and believes that the Cornell name should not be included in the title. Any person, any study is not reflected in the Cornell Review. People should know more about diversity and it is important for all the campus to get involved in the discussion

M. Yao said that as an international student he is aware of the issue on campus and there is offensive speech in many publications. He feels that the core issue should be addressed and more should go into selecting what types of speech can be published.

R. Salem said that the Whereas clauses of a resolution can really say anything. The sponsors could strike them if many representatives feel that the clauses are irrelevant. The Be it therefore resolved clauses are the ones that matter.

M. McDermott said that Policy 4.10 is not a part of the Campus Code of Conduct and that they are two different things. He does not understand the logic of including revision of one in a resolution titled by the other. The issue is complex and important. He thinks that it should be given proper attention through the appropriate venues. It does not make sense to pass something quickly to appease audience members in attendance.

R. Stein said that she agrees with M. McDermott. Everyone in the room deserves the respect of the assembly. She does not believe that the assembly would be being either respectful or rational in voting in favor of the resolution just for the sake of passing something or for showing that the assembly cares. They all do care. They all agreed that a committee should be formed and that the issue should be further discussed. The resolution on the table does not accomplish anything. It is senseless. Additionally, the subject line is incorrect. Although both the main issue and the issue of the Cornell Review need to be discussed, they should be separated. The resolution should only deal with one of the issues.

A junior in ILR said that he hopes that assembly members saw the piece “Liberal Fascism at Cornell, in the Daily Sun that morning. The S.A. has struggled with visibility essentially since the dawn of time and this is the assembly’s opportunity. The article states, “If the S.A. passes a resolution, ignore it. Everyone else does.” The article directly challenges Cornell, the administration and this assembly. Let it be known that this is not true. He urged the assembly to pass Resolution 6 in its original form. Follow through. Prove that the S.A. will not be pushed around. Further, show the students that we do not tolerate hateful speech.

O. Sandoval said that once again his point is that he would like to see immediate action. Forming a committee tends to be a long term solution. People are hurt now. People want action now. Removing Cornell from the review is a quick measure that could really alert campus to the issue.

T. Miller said that the assembly, in conjunction with the U.A., already has a committee to tackle these issues�the Joint Assemblies Multicultural Issues Committee (JAMIC). He feels that this committee should be the committee to take on these issues. He is opposed to another committee being formed because an appropriate committee already exists. The assembly also has to be careful because the words “regulate speech” sound a lot like censorship and he is not for that. He yielded his time to R. Quigley.

R. Quigley said that there is a statement on the first page of the review saying that the opinions expressed in the articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflects the views of the editors or the staff. She suggested taking mention of the review out of the resolution since the discussion has turned so far away from Policy 4.10. Condemn the writer not the paper. Hold people accountable. If the assembly is looking into the past as the sponsors suggest there are a host of other issues that are offensive and create a hostile environment.

An audience member said that the resolution should include the Cornell Review because the publication is the main perpetrator of racism on campus. She quoted the Agreement for Independent Contracted Organizations and emphasized that the assembly has the right and responsibility to remove Cornell from the title of the review.

V. Andrews motioned to strike the first three whereas clauses from the resolution and to change the subject to Compliance with Cornell’s Statement on Diversity. This amendment unifies the resolution and allows the assembly to act.

The sponsors of the resolution found the amendment friendly.

T. Miller dissented.

T. Miller said that the resolution is a good idea but emphasized that the assembly already has a committee to deal with these issues. Why create a new one?

In response to a question asked by a representative, R. Lavin confirmed that JAMIC has been inactive but that that doesn’t mean anything. A lot of things have changed this year.

T. Miller suggested charging JAMIC with exploring the issue.

R. Lavin opened up a speaker’s list on the amendment.

E. Cusick motioned to amend. Policy 4.10 should be changed to Cornell’s Statement on Diversity in the first be it therefore resolved clause since representatives no longer wish the resolution to focus on Policy 4.10.

The sponsors found the amendment friendly. There was no dissent. The change became a part of the active document.

R. Lavin said that the speaker’s list was empty and that the assembly would move to a vote on the amendment.

By a hand vote, the amendment passed.

A. Craig said that he thinks that it would be a good idea to have an ad-hoc committee, created through this resolution, work with JAMIC to address the issues discussed at the meeting. This encourages involvement by individuals and will help reactivate JAMIC. An ad-hoc committee is the best response to handle the issue.

A community member spoke in favor of immediate action.

E. Diakow emphasized that the reason that the assembly is having the current discussion and the reason for which the assembly has decided to urge revising the Campus Code of Conduct is because of the Cornell Review.

Y. Mao said that editors have to take responsibility for the articles published in their papers. The issue represents a long existing problem and is best addressed by a committee which can carry on with the issue.

C. Basil said that the resolution before the assembly is very different than the one they began discussing. He thinks that the assembly has had an important discussion revolving around freedom of speech. The assembly appears to have come to the consensus that it is important to recognize free speech while realizing that speech can go overbroad and be hateful. He is looking forward to reexamining the results of the committee proposed in the resolution. He called to question.

C. Basil read the entire resolution to make sure that all representatives were clear on the wording.

The sponsors took two minutes to summarize the resolution and why they it should be passed.

By a roll call vote of 17–4−0, Resolution 6 passed.

R. Lavin said that the time was currently 6:35P.M.

C. Basil motioned to extend the time of meeting because the assembly had invited Big Red Bikes to present.

There were multiple seconds. The meeting was extended.

R. Lavin asked the new freshman and transfer representatives see him after the meeting.

Big Red Bikes Presentation — Noah Zallen

R. Lavin said that the assembly was excited about Big Red Bikes and apologized to the presenters for having to wait.

N. Zallen said he was from a group called Big Red Bikes. The group is working to establish a bike share program on campus.

The individual accompanying him said that the bike share system involves short term bike rentals. Users can rent a bike from one hub, bike to their location and return the bike to another hub. Such a bike system promotes convenience and a sustainable lifestyle and supports the President’s Climate commitment. She said that the general idea of the organization is to create an environmentally sound and financially feasible bike sharing system.

N. Zallen shared some of the specifics of the proposed system. They are suggesting that there be four or five main bike stations on campus. Each station will consist of a bike rack with a lock system on each bike and a sign in/out station. Upon signing out a bike, a student will receive a key that grants access to one bike which can be taken out for 24 hours. The student will be allowed to take the bike anywhere as long as it is returned on time. Upon return, students will be required to lock up the bikes so that they are not stolen. The system will work because there are low infrastructure costs, no additional human labor is required after set up, the bikes will be available at convenient and accessible locations, and the bikes will be cheap for students to borrow. They hope to have Cornell supplement the program in addition to receiving grants. Students will be required to sign a waiver that strongly urges them to wear a helmet and ensures that Cornell is not liable for accidents that occur. Students will swipe ID cards to check out a bike so there is no risk of wondering what happened to a bike if it goes missing. The costs will be about $300 per bike and $40 per lock and key. The bikes will be purchased from a local bike shop in the area. He covered some of the other costs involved in the program as well and conservatively estimated the total cost at $15,000.

C. Basil asked about how students would be charged.

N. Zallen said that they envisioned that students could be charged a minimal semester fee. The amount will really depend on how much money the initiative receives.

C. Basil confirmed that the initiative would be nonprofit.

The individual accompanying N. Zallen said that they were also considering a monthly pass since they did not see the service being available during winter months.

C. Basil asked if the $300 price per bike was a reasonable price.

N. Zallen said that the program has to purchase quality bikes for risk management purposes.

T. Miller asked if any other peer institutions or universities have taken on a similar program.

The individual accompanying N. Zallen said that there have been quite a few cities, primarily European, and universities that have established similar programs. These programs have been recently established and still small scale.

T. Miller asked if they have asked anyone else in the university for money and what their reception was.

N. Zallen said that the idea was originally conceived of two years ago. The university basically said that if the initiative could get grant money either from the university or outside, they were okay with the program. Cornell has additionally explored for profit versions of the system but this turns out to be much more expensive for students. Cornell got frustrated by this and they are thus now looking into nonprofit versions.

R. Salem asked the individuals presenting what they would like the assembly to do for them.

N. Zallen said that they are looking for the assembly support. They are also seeking funding or advice on how to obtain funding.

R. Lavin said that he believes that it is a very viable option for the assembly to help finance the initiative in some way. If the individuals speak to E. Diakow, they can be placed on the agenda for an Appropriations Committee meeting. The assembly can look into the possibility of giving the initiative a start up gift. He recommended turning the group into a registered student organization for long term planning. In this way, the group can apply for by-line funding.

In response to a question asked by B. Smith, the individuals presenting elaborated on possible locations and the set up at those locations.

A. Craig asked if a pay as you go option had been considered.

The individual accompanying N. Zallen said that a pay as you go option has been considered and that they are open to whatever is feasible and works best for students.

N. Junewicz said that she thinks that the program is a great idea and will especially benefit those students who live far way and cannot easily bring a bike to Cornell. She asked if there would be someone around who checks the tires and breaks on the bikes to make sure that they are all in proper working order.

N. Zallen said that they would have an individual who does this and are looking into the issue further. They have budgeted for maintenance costs.

In response to a question asked by N. Raps, the presenters confirmed that students would be charged to damages done to bikes. There was further discussion on the appropriateness of charging students for damages.

VIII. Unfinished Business

No Unfinished Business was discussed.

IX. Adjournment

T. Miller adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun