Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 18, 2010
4:45–6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

R. Salem called the meeting to order at 4:50pm.

II. Roll Call

Voting Members Present: A. Akinpelu, V. Andrews, C. Basil, A. Brokman, M. Danzer, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, Z. Glasser, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, J. Min, C. Moreno, A. Nicoletti, S. Purdy, N. Raps, J. Rau, A. Raveret, R. Salem, U. Smith, K. Welch, H. Yang

Non-Voting Members Present: A. Cowen

Voting Members Unexcused Absent: M. Delucia

Voting Members Excused Absent: R. Latella

II. Announcements/Reports

R. Salem asked for a moment of silence for the recent deaths of a student and professor.

a. Update on Task Force Recommendations�Paul Streeter, Associate Vice President for Planning and Budget

P. Streeter said that the task force is trying to develop a comprehensive budget model for the campus. A full report of this is available online. One of their recommendations is to pool undergraduate tuition. Currently, students’ tuition flows to their prospective college. The task force believes that pooling the tuition of all students will enhance the institution in the long term. Additionally, students will not feel any negative effects from this change.

N. Kumar asked how the centralization of the money flow would effect the incentives that colleges have for offering duplicate courses?

P. Streeter said that this depends on the individual college. For example, there is currenty no money flowing back and forth between the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Engineering. However, the current system is incomplete and the task force would like students to take courses in other colleges based on academic, rather than financial reasons.

M. Danzer said that there should be shared governance and responsibility with one school looking out for one another. Will there be a move to make sure that schools that don’t overextend themselves aren’t the ones that are hit the hardest?

P. Streeter said that he isn’t talking about a budget model. These initiatives will not be enacted until at least 2012. As for administrative cost savings, they are seeking to save 90 million dollars over the next five years. This may not be achievable, but they must act now due to the current budget deficit which is threatening to increase. Information may be found at cornell.edu/reimagining. Hopefully these initiatives will minimize the impact of budg cuts.

A. Brockman said he felt that the idea of pooling tuition does not fit along with the university’s recent decision to increase tuition.

P. Streeter said that the tuition increase for each student is 1700 dollars. Their tuition planning approach has been to make the cost increase uniformly across campus on a dollar, rather than percentage basis.

R. Salem asked if the provost would have the final say in the pooling system? Will there be a system of checks and balances?

P. Streeter said that there will be a standard methodology that would not change every year so that colleges and departments can plan. The provost issue will be studied within the next year.

R. Desai asked about the purpose of the suggested tax on tuition. What will the funds be used for? Also, will there be undergraduate involvement on the advisory group? Can you clarify your recent statement that undergraduates will feel a greater impact than graduates under the proposed budget model?

P. Streeter said he may have been misquoted because he doesn’t think that undergraduates will feel a greater negative impact than graduates. As for the advisory group, the provost will decide who will be on it when it is formed. He thinks that it should be a representative group and that the provost should make sure that the campus understands the distribution process of funds. Regarding the suggested tax on tuition, the task force believes that the provost needs a set of resources that will cut across colleges on a large scale. They think that it is appropriate for all of the different university revenue streams to go in to this pool, including taxes. The advancement of the university as a whole is greater than that of individual colleges. Thus, additional resources available to the provost would be helpful to achieve this.

A. Gitlin asked if there are any laws or stipulations that come with the NY state funds for the chartered colleges that would prevent the university from pooling their money.

P. Streeter said that they have a framework that will meet these stewardship requirements. These requirements make our current budget framework complicated.

V. Andrews said that one of the major reasons for pooling tuition is to try to create efficiences among overlapping classes in each college. How will the university change academically because of the pooling? Will student input be taken into account regarding this change?

P. Streeter said that they are discussing the overlapping programs issue, but it is a different conversation than the budget model. Over time, he is not sure if there will be student input on the subject because they have not yet discussed this. However, the university is always interested in student input and interest.

R. Salem thanked Paul Streeter for attending.

b. Elections Update- Nikki Junewicz

N. Junewicz said that the upcoming election has 36 registered candidates and their blurbs will be posted tomorrow.

c. JAMIC Update- Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar said that there will be a JAMIC meeting the week after next. Community members interested in attending should email him.

d. University Strategic Plan Update�Chris Basil and Nikhil Kumar

C. Basil said that a series of brown bag lunches is coming up which he will attend in order to provide feedback to the Student Assembly regarding the reimagining process.

e. Public Service Committee Update�Adam Gitlin

A. Gitlin said that the committee held its first meeting last week. Soon, they will begin solicting from service organizations on campus for more support. There are positions and an informal application process for anyone who would like to join the committee. Additionally, the Student Assembly is participating in Relay for Life in less than two weeks to raise money for cancer research.

III. Business of the Day

a. R. 53-Class Council Elections, Poster Policy Changes�Chris Basil

C. Basil said that the changes to this resolution are straightforward and that the S.A. should vote on this quickly.

R. Desai called the resolution to question.

There was a call for acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. The resolution passed.

IV. Unfinished Business

a. R. 44- Non-Discrimination Clause- Andrew Brokman

A. Brokman said that this was the third time he had spoken about a non-discrimination clause at an assembly meeting. His resolution concerns a change in policy regarding full rights of membership in student organizations. These organizations should be run and managed by the students themselves, so to receive funding they need to compromise and conform to Cornell’s standards. This will promote an open and active student life. If we want religious student life to grow we need to make these changes. This resolution ensures that something like the Chi Alpha controversy will not happen again. Students should not have to endure discrimination.

R. Salem asked if there were any audience members who wish to be recognized.

C. Basil said that this issue is very complicated, but what he sees is an entirely different issue than the S.A. began with last year. This will be punitive to the school’s religious groups. If you are considering voting “yes,” consider that under this resolution, a Christian men’s organization will have to allow women as members.

A. Brokman said that not allowing women as members would be a violation under current policy.

C. Basil said that the resolution will force any group with what are considered “extreme views” to be shifted into moderation. This is not what we want to accomplish. We don’t want people to be discriminated on, but we also want groups to have their own viewpoints. I think that we should be able to say “I think what you did is wrong,” but we shouldn’t be able to say “you’re not allowed to say this.”

M. Danzer said that there is less distance between Basil’s views and the resolution than he thinks. However, he believes that organizations should not be able to receive Cornell money to discriminate upon others. Groups can voice their discriminatory opinions on their own time, but not with student money.

R. Desai said that a vote no on this resolution is not a vote for discrimination.

R. Salem called upon community member Larry Lin.

L. Lin said he believes this resolution will put our diversity at stake. If Cornell wants diversity, it must fund organizations that promote this diversity.

N. Kumar introduced Mike Wagner, who was proposing an amendment to the resolution.

M. Wagner read his amendment aloud.

R. Salem declared that the amendment was open to discussion.

M. Wagner said that the language he used comes directly from the Supreme Court case Roberts vs. U.S.

A. Brokman repeated that this was his third time speaking about this resolution. He has already edited it several times and it is getting no where. They do not need another amendment.

M. Danzer said that the amendment would undermine the current language of the non-discrimination clause.

N. Raps said she doesn’t support the amendment. The Supreme Court has decided that students don’t have a right to extreme free speech when it goes against the learning environment. Everyone should be able to join any organization they want. Members of our student population wouldn’t want to take over the organizations of others. Have faith in our student community.

V. Andrews said he doesn’t like how this amendment grants groups a way to exclude individuals. This does not reflect Cornell’s mission of open hearts, open minds. Inclusion is what is important.

U. Smith said that thinks people should be able to go to groups, but not necessarily share all of their views. The resolution is targeting the difference between religious freedom and gay rights, which is a fairly new subject. Because of the exclusionary wording of the amendment, he cannot support it.

A. Gitlin said that he does not support the amendment because there is too much racism and discrimination in the world already and the assembly should be promoting tolerance.

The amendment was called to question. Seconded with no dissent. By a hand vote of 1–13–2, the amendment fails.

R. Salem said that the representatives should resume discussion and debate of the entire resolution.

U. Smith said that the major issue concerns protecting everyone from discrimination. He is trying to look at the resolution from a legal perspective but his moral compass is in the other direction. He supports the resolution to a certain extent, but some of the wording is fuzzy. He will support it, but if a group is receiving funds they must be able to let others in.

R. Salem said that the issue is between the 1st and the 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

A. Brokman said he wants full rights of membership to all. University doctrine is supreme here and the university has a right to lay down the law.

Community member Danielle Ambrosio said that if you cannot get organization leaders to hold the opinions of the organization, it defeats the purpose of this group.

V. Andrews asked who will be enforcing the resolution.

A. Brokman said the Student Activities Office, the SAFC, then the SA, and onward.

V. Andrews asked if the SAFC would be able to revoke group funding.

A. Epstein said they would not be able to. The SAFC would have to defer to another group.

V. Andrews said this resolution does not have much of a framework. If someone in the Student Activities Office holds one belief, it could influence how groups are run across campus. Do you think do you think President Skorton will sign this?

A. Brokman said that that is not relevant. Don’t just push for what we think will get by. Push for what the students want.

R. Salem advised the representatives to vote on their own feelings, not on what they think Skorton will say.

Community member Sam Ramsey said we shouldn’t be so open minded that our brains will fall out. Every group leader, religious or otherwise, should have the same core values of the group. If you don’t share these same views, how can you lead?

R. Desai said he would like to propose an amendment, changing the resolution’s wording. You should be able to apply to a position if you want, but you might not receive it. The groups should decide.

R. Salem said this amendment needs to be seconded.

Seconded.

C. Basil said it is difficult for him to say if the amendment would make the resolution better or worse because he thinks the resolution is bad either way. There are more nuances to the issues than Resolution 44 gets at.

A. Brokman said he believes you should not be discriminated on based on sexuality. The issues are too important to simply vote quickly to get the resolution out of the way.

A. Gitlin said that humans can stand together with other people without being carbon copies of each other. Not all viewpoints stack up on all topics. Barring people because of one point of their world view is not right.

U. Smith said he doesn’t have a problem with members, but with leaders.

R. Salem said the part about membership is already in the University Code.

U. Smith said the SA needs to review this issue more in depth with focus groups.

J. Rau said that for time purposes, they should table the resolution indefinitely because they aren’t getting anywhere. They are spending more time on this resolution than on anything he can remember.

N. Kumar called the amendment to question.

By a hand vote of 3–10–5, the amendment fails.

There was a call to table the resolution indefinitely. Dissent.

A. Brokman said that the resolution mirrors preexisting university policy wording. As for tabling indefinitely, this is the first day that the resolution has had a full dicussion.

By a hand vote of 7–8−2, the motion to table fails.

There was a call to question. Seconded with no dissent.

A. Brokman asked the assembly to think about the students who won’t be able to get full rights. It is important to provide everyone with full protection and rights. The university also has the right to set the rules of the game.

By a vote of 9–8−1, the resolution passed.

b. R. 43- Defining the General Roles of College Representatives- Ulysses Smith

Call There was a call to question. Seconded with no dissent. By a hand vote of 15–0−2, the resolution passed.

Respectfully Submitted, Allison Bazinet