University Assembly Meeting
April 27, 2005
BioTech Building G01
4:30 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Enoch Chu, Kristen Rich, Grayon Fahrner, Tim McConnochie, Doug Mitarotonda, Joshua Nelson, Denis Achacoso, Pamela Dusseau, Henry Granison, Nathaniel Guest, Leon Lawrence, Kenneth Hover, Robert Kay, Timothy Setter, Randy Wayne

Excused: Christina Yoon

Unexcused: Sarah Casar, Ashley Moore, Richard Depue, Douglas Kysar, Ellis Loew

III. Business of the Day

Campus Code of Conduct Change re: Underage Drinking
Rich Helms, chair CJC and physics graduate student, said that their goal is to change the behavior associated with alcohol that they think causes most of the problem: intoxication. Right now, even students who are found in very bad conditions, but without any alcohol on them, are not in violation of the code. They would like to change that so that they have leverage against students to get t hem to change their behavior. This violation would not necessarily entail punishment, but, rather, some sort of educational counseling. In addition to student health concerns, there is much peripheral damage that is caused by drinking such as vandalism and sexual abuse. For instance, last year there were 14 cases of sexual abuse, all of which involved alcohol.

K. Rich asked if all of those cases involved people who were under 21.

R. Helms said he didn’t know exactly, though probably they were not all only people under 21.

G. Fahrner said he had heard concerns about the fact that this would affect medical amnesty. Right now, since intoxication is not a JA-able offense, the friends calling for help don’t have to worry about being in violation of the code. However, if people think that this has any affect on medical amnesty, his concern is that when people see a friend passed out on the couch, they will think twice about calling and maybe be more unlikely to call for help.

Mary Beth Grant, the JA, said she would like this concern. Even though it may not seem like it, this change will actually strengthen medical amnesty. Medical amnesty is very important at Cornell. It started in the fall of 2002. It had two goals: 1) to protect the health and safety of individuals who had too much to drink. It actually did increase the number of people who called. 2) to try and get more education and information to the drunk person. It is one thing for a person who’s drank too much to say, “Man I never want to do that again.” They take it a step further in giving them the information and help to not do it again. Medical amnesty is working really well. They have had follow-up meetings with CUPD and Gannett. They are actually interpreting the rule more broadly that it was originally intended because they believe in it so strongly. Gannett’s statistics show that more students are making the calls and getting the education. Adding this language strengthens medical amnesty because students are allowed to bypass the JA and get free education, even though they get a ticket (as they do currently with the policy). Right now, even medical amnesty cases are still files in their office, the student just bypasses a meeting with them and it doesn’t go on the student’s record. The other benefit is that they don’t have to pay for the information and classes. Also, if it is a second case, the addition of penalties is treated differently. For instance, she said she would not use a medical amnesty case to trigger a suspension for a student on probation.

G. Fahrner said he had to disagree. When students read about this change and know they can get in trouble for being drunk, it will make them think twice about calling for help. His concern is that students need to fully believe in medical amnesty if they choose to help a friend. With this addition, they might not have that belief.

M. Grantsaid that the best way to make sure students don’t take this the wrong way would me through word of mouth. Gannett can also pass that information along.

R. Helms said that medical amnesty is only applicable when you are in violation of the code, so students violating the new code would still be covered. It is a way to be in violation but not get punished.

K. Rich asked if students are only allowed to use medical amnesty once.

M. Grant said no, they can use it as many times as needed.

T. McConnochie said that, the way it currently stands, people would not need to invoke medical amnesty just for being intoxicated, but with this change they would.

Linda Folkstone, assistant to the JA, said that this really doesn’t change anything because right now, if you’re under 21 and drinking just one beer, you’re in violation. This provision points out who they do want to target: not necessarily the person nursing one beer, but the people who cause problems.

K. Rich asked how they would determine if someone is intoxicated.

M. Grant said that nobody would be running around with breathalyzers. There are ways to tell. For instance, if someone smells of alcohol, is weaving, has slurred speech, or is being disruptive.

R. Wayne asked if there is a code of conduct about vandalism.

M. Grant said that they do have rules about destructive and disorderly conduct.

R. Wayne said they’ve made it clear that they want this to be an educational tool. The question now is if this is the right time to do it or not. Should the JA administer education after the fact or at another time. They have been talking a lot about a Life Skills 101 class. Perhaps that is a better time. It might be more appropriate to address these problems beforehand, to tell students that if they’re going to drink — which, in reality, they will — then we want to educate you on ways to be smart about it as soon as you come to Cornell. If they have a rule like this, where they don’t even know what intoxication is, it’s too hard or too easy to prosecute someone with.

R. Helms said if they do add it to something like a Life 101, but it’s not included in the code, it sends a mixed message.

M. Grant said that during orientation students already do participate in an online alcohol education program.

J. Lee, a senior undergraduate, said that they are bringing this up to the New York State law. She’s an undergraduate and she understands that they don’t want this applied in the strictest sense. They know people drink and they aren’t trying to deny it. However, even with this rule, if you’re in Collegetown drinking with friends and not causing a problem, it’s not as if there are just going to be police all over the place just waiting to get students in trouble.

P. Dusseau asked what sorts of activity people engage in now to get caught. Since there aren’t just police walking around picking people who are drinking, there must be some other activity that draws attention to them.

M. Grant said that people get caught partying in a dorm or on Homecoming and Slope Day. Sometimes people are caught walking along with a beer they took from a party. Others are caught causing property damage or some other form of disorderly conduct. It is not that people are out to find people who are drinking, usually the drinkers call attention to themselves.

K. Rich said that police officers have to be specially trained to deal with DUI and DWI cases. They also have to have a breathalyzer test in NY state to arrest someone for these charges. It is not fair to have people who aren’t trained rigorously determining who is intoxicated and who isn’t.

L. Folkstone said that you can actually be charged in NY state without a breathalyzer. In fact, you can deny the breathalyzer if you want. She didn’t remember all the tests they do, but a person can definitely be charged without a breathalyzer test for a DWI. There are some clear signs, such as if a person is disruptive, screaming, or carrying on. At parties, you can see if a person is in really bad shape. Also, if you aren’t satisfied with bypassing the JA and you really don’t think you did anything wrong, you have the option of appealing to the peer review board. They could define intoxication in those terms in the code, but she wasn’t sure they could make a definition that everyone was satisfied with. In her opinion, RA, RHA, and other observations should come into play.

R. Helms said that the legal limit that would be defined is much lower than the amount of alcohol a person would have had to drink to be engaging in the type of behaviors described.

J. Lee said that there has to be some evidence in cases for the Peer Review Board or the JA. There is a lot of proof and support needed before a person can get in trouble. In addition, the first trip to the JA isn’t going to ruing your life. This is really designed to help catch people with a problem.

K. Rich said that just going to the JA can be a very stressful experience.

J. Lee agreed, but said that this doesn’t go on records that affect grad school acceptances or things like that.

K. Hover said he had come today prepared to vote in favor of this change, but as the discussion continues, he is losing enthusiasm. There has been a lot of verbiage about the flexibility behind the words, but that’s not in the wording. They need to define what is meant by intoxication. He said he sees this becoming much more of a police state if it is left to an official to determine at the time if a person is intoxicated than if it is written on paper. Also, in terms of medical amnesty, he said he is still unclear on how this would strengthen that. He is compelled by the image of students trying to decide to help a passed out friend and thinking they’re putting themselves in jeopardy. Also, if this is implemented and works like it is supposed to. Is Gannett ready to handle the amount of cases that will come to them to avoid getting in trouble? Also, do they pass out 10,000 tickets on Slope Day or other events like Homecoming? He is appalled by the behavior, but this change does not accomplish what it is meant to.

R. Helms said that they are always open to other suggestions of handling these problems. He also said that while an official would make the judgment originally, the peer board makes the final decision, so it isn’t just one person making the call.

K. Hover said he hears it in the rhetoric, but not in the writing.

P. Dusseau said that this new rule is less subjective than “intent to consume.” She said this might actually lead to less people being found not in violation. Also, they are just bringing it up to the standards of the law.

J. Lee said they spent a lot of time on the language. It started out saying “had consumed,” which was way too strict. While it may be illegal to have even one beer underage, nobody will support that change. Intoxication is a much higher level than that.

Tim McConnochie said that he did a quick, informal survey of graduate students and got about nine responses in the hour before the meeting. Their response was overwhelmingly negative. In order for him to support this, he would have to have answers to some of their concerns. Many people’s concerns come from the fact that they disagree that the age is 21 at all, which is an entirely different issue. What this change proposes raises the stakes of that law, which will force drinking even further underground and create more dangerous situation. For instance, in sexual assault cases, people may be afraid to report them if they fear getting in trouble and being sent to the JA because they were drinking too. In reality, they wouldn’t get in trouble, but this can affect student’s perceptions of reality, which is just as dangerous.

R. Helms said that the JA, in that case, would focus on the big picture, not penalize the victim.

J. Nelson asked if medical amnesty is codified in the code of conduct to say that.

M. Grant said no, it is not. Also, in rape cases, they also must talk to witnesses about their drinking to assess their credibility. In that case, they’re not out to get the witnesses. She reminded them that the point of this change really is about being educational.

L. Folkstone said that if they wanted to charge people in that way now, they would. This provision doesn’t give them the incentive to charge victims.

B. Kay asked if NY state law currently says that it is illegal for someone under 21 to be intoxicated.

M. Grant said no, it is not.

B. Kay said that, in that case, when they claim we are making our rules be consistent with the law, that isn’t actually true.

Randy Lariar, a freshman engineer and member of the SA, said his concern is similar to other members about how this would affect student’s perceptions of the rule. For instance, if they pass this code and it’s a judicial offense just to be intoxicated, what if a student is in a potentially dangerous situation where one student is trying to rape another and the victim doesn’t want to leave and walk around because they are afraid of getting caught. Intoxicated students don’t make the best decisions and this makes it even harder for them to make good decision. Even if this doesn’t change their power to enforce the provision, the knowledge that it exists might keep people from leaving dangerous situations or calling if someone needs help. Students already break the law by consuming alcohol, he doesn’t think this will change that fact; it will just change what happens after a student has already been drinking.

R. Helms said in that case, students should know that the JA is safer.

R. Lariar said that reality isn’t what matters; it’s all about student perceptions. If people don’t know or understand the rules, it doesn’t matter what they actually say. He is worried that this will create a new perception of the rules that will endanger students.

J. Nelson said they ought to codify the amnesty policy in the code of conduct then so students know.

M. Grant said that is not the role of the code.

P. Dusseau said that information about medical amnesty is everywhere. There is a huge marketing campaign about it, including “Get out of JA free.” They take it very seriously because they are concerned about the health and safety of students.

J. Nelson said that if it is codified and clarified in the code, it might address the concerns.

P. Dusseau disagreed, saying that students don’t read the code of conduct. Marketing is more effective.

J. Lee said she understands the concern, but doesn’t think that changing a few words will really have the effect they’re worried about.

R. Wayne said that society says that drinking is ok, there’s just an age limit. He thinks it’s almost as bad to never drink as to be a drunk. There is a middle ground and that is a good place to be. The age limit of 21 is arbitrary and capricious. He isn’t denying the fact that alcohol can cause problems and DUIs can cause problems, but the rule should be more conditional to address the real concerns, which are things like civil disobedience. If students cause trouble, they should be punished. Furthermore, they should be punished more harshly if they’ve been drinking. That way, if students cause trouble and have been drinking, it’s a double whammy. However, as far as just having a blanket rule that being intoxicated is against the code causes too much of a police state.

R. Helms agreed that there should be a middle ground, but intoxication is the point where you’ve gone too far.

R. Wayne said this new rule is just too scary. It could change a lot of people’s minds in probably a very bad way.

G. Farhner said that a huge problem he sees is how unenforceable this rule is. They have all seemed to acknowledge that one or two beers is ok; however, what about on Slope Day when you have 10,000 drunk kids. Also, giving the RAs the responsibility to make the judgment is far too subjective because RAs themselves are subjective. One RA might write up a student who has been drinking but isn’t causing any problems and another RA might not write up a kid who had been drinking and is making noise and being disruptive. That second kid can get off without any penalty, when he is the kid who this rule was designed to catch. This is not an effective method to address the problem. Students don’t read the code, only those who enforce it really knows what it says. This won’t change student behavior. They need a rule that targets the things that are actually the problem.

R. Helms asked if Fahrner is implying that they should be writing up violations for noise disturbance instead.

G. Fahrner said absolutely yes, if that is the problem they want to address. He thanked them for medical amnesty, which is a great program, but reminded them that it is fragile. Students really need to have full faith in it and this new wording could make a huge different. Changing student perceptions in that way could ruin medical amnesty altogether.

J. Lee said that all you need to do is say that medical amnesty is till in effect when they release this change, which will solve their concerns.

K. Rich thanked Bob Kay for pointing out that it is not illegal to be intoxicated under the age of 21 in NY state. The wording of this change is terrifying, especially when you consider that there is no clear definition to gauge if a student is intoxicated. Also, this proposal only came out on the 20th of this month; there hasn’t even been enough time for it to circulate on campus and students to be aware of it. She asked if the Greek society had even been informed. This is a huge change and it is unacceptable for people to not to know about it. There was no campus-wide forum for discussion. It is a harsh rule that doesn’t have the support of the community behind it.

R. Helms said that he thinks intoxication is subjective; it is that way under the law as well. They know this won’t fix the problem automatically, but they need to decide what is the best policy to have on the books. The CJC thinks this is the best policy even if it’s not 100% effective.

The amendment of the current rule was called to question as written in the attached memo. It was seconded. There was no dissent. A vote was taken via hands. With a vote of 1–9−4, the amendment failed.

N. Guest commented that, with the law being what it is, what matters most to him personally isn’t what the books say, but the safety of the students. If the CJC proposes a way to take care of students that they feel is the best way, he would like to see more information about what they see the change as fixing and how. Also, information about who is falling through the cracks with the current rules. If more of those concerns were addressed, he would support such changes.

D. Mitarotonda said that, in the interest of time, anyone with more feedback should get it to the CJC before the end of the year and they will table that discussion for now. He thanked the CJC representatives for their time.

R. Helms said that their recommendations come from other people. They have never had a recommendation to put medical amnesty in the code of conduct. He encouraged them to send that and other recommendations to them. He thanked everyone on the UA, Mary Beth, and Linda. He will not be at Cornell next year, so he wanted to thank the Office of Assemblies, particularly Tammy Bishop because without her the CJC wouldn’t operate as well as it does. His comments were met with a round of applause.

Approval of Mary Beth Grant, Judicial Administrator
R. Wayne said he went to the JA’s office a few months ago to talk about the JA’s role in campus safety and about a personal issue dealing with an advisee who had been the victim of an assault case; he wanted to get information and discuss how the process worked for her. When he got back to his office, he received a phone call from the University Council that told him, in words, that they support what he is doing. In between those words, she basically told him that they don’t want any loose cannons on campus. He is not implying that Brant called the University Council’s Office, but he is interested in what is the current status as far as the independence of the JA from the University Council. If some has been sexually assaulted and goes to the JA, does that student know that the case will be based on the merits of the case or is the office trying to protect the university in some larger sense? Is the JA there to serve students, the university, or a mix of both?

M. Grant said she appreciates having the opportunity to speak about this. The philosophy she has used as JA for nearly 6 years is that when the office looks at a case, they are trying to balance a triangle — rights of the community, rights of the accused, and rights of the victim. They need to address the rights of all three. The base of this triangle is the standards of the community. Their first duty is to assess whether or not there had been a violation of the code and standards of the community. They interview the complainant, the accused, and the witnesses because they can’t get the full story by just looking at one side. Then they figure out if they think there’s enough evidence that is clear and convincing. If there is, they present a recommended proposal to the accused person. That is how a majority of cases are resolved. They can’t actually impose any action on the accused students; all parties must agree it to. If the complainant doesn’t accept the proposal, it goes to the hearing board. Also, if the complainant doesn’t agree with the proposal, they can appeal to the hearing board. There is a system of checks and balances to make sure her office doesn’t have the final say. When there is a threat to sue the university, they must let the University Council now about it, but the council is not involved in the decision-making.

R. Wayne said if he were a victim and he felt the way he did after the phone call he received from the University Council, he would not trust the JA’s office to serve his best interest. The university is served best in the short-run by keeping certain things quiet and it seems that the university is the longest leg of that triangle.

M. Grant disagreed/.

T. McConnochie said Wayne’s concern seems to be more with the University Council than with Grant.

R. Wayne said he isn’t asking this because he’s voting against her; he is voting for her. It is just an area of interest to him. If someone is seeking person help, right now he personally wouldn’t send them to the JA; he would send them straight to CUPD. He said he would like to address this issue with her.

M. Grant said she would love to work with him.

There was a motion to vote on the approval of the JA. It was seconded. There was no dissent. A vote was taken via hands. The vote was 13–0−1 to confirm Grant’s appointment. The abstention was her husband.

K. Hover said that, again they are reviewing something the president already did. Why are they wasting their time on things that are already a done deal?

M. Grant said the code says the JA can be reappointed by the president only with the approval of the UA.

IV. New Business

Recommendations to the President re: Academic Integrity
M. Lang said he spoke with Charlie Walcott and the president wants the UA to address the issue of academic integrity. He thinks the UA has the authority and should be the body to do it. With that said, it is better to address this in a smaller group, so they may want to form some sort of committee. The only thing missing right now is a real strong leader. He is working to get someone from the senior administration to chair it, which will probably happen. The point is, he wants the issue to stay in the UA.

P. Dusseau said this will give them the power, leverage, and focus this body needs. She is happy and proud that they will be handling this task.

T. McConnochie said that the UA charter doesn’t really give us authority over this area. If the faculty senate says they can address it, then they could proceed.

M. Lang said the UA charter allows them to deal with “academic matters.”

T. McConnochie said he worries that this will go to a taskforce to die. Their taskforces don’t have a very good record.

M. Lang said that the fact that the safety taskforce died was his fault. Randy Wayne made efforts to keep the taskforce going, and Lang said he impeded their progress. He apologized.

P. Dusseau asked why they didn’t meet for two months. What decision-making led to that? They haven’t met since Hope Mandeville left. Was it an executive decision, or the Office of Assemblies, or Martin who cancelled the meetings? It has presented issues in terms of who is the leader and who is making the decisions.

D. Mitarotonda said that basically what happened was that the speakers just kept falling through. The E-board gives Martin the task of getting people to attend and speak at their meetings. In regards to the first meeting, they were told that Lehman was supposed to give a statement about academic integrity and were asked to hold off on discussing the issue. That happened the Monday before their Wednesday meeting, which led to the cancellation.

M. Lang said that they had been leaked information about the president’s intent to create a taskforce, so it didn’t make sense for them to meet about it when it was about to be pulled out of their laps.

P. Dusseau said that they had other business to address like the issue of committees. They lose viability if they fail to meet as if there’s no business for them to attend to. There are things that need to happen on a consistent basis. She asked if the UA, structurally, would be able to manage the task of academic integrity.

M. Lang said that Barbara Krauss said that the president was thinking about considering a taskforce. He worked with the e-board and that is why the February meeting was cancelled as described. He took responsibility for the March meeting being cancelled; he was unable to secure the guests and so they decided they shouldn’t meet and spin their wheels. He can make up excuses all they want. For instance, he has been doing 80% of Hope’s job since she left. They are hiring another person to take care of the SAFC this summer, in which case he will have more time to devote to the UA next semester. He said he likes the UA better than the SA and looks forward to working more with them next year.

L. Lawrence said that in terms of their time, whatever they have on the agenda should be the agenda no matter who says what. Other people shouldn’t have the right to change the agenda. For instance, the administration has the power not to accept anything they do, but they should still deal with issues they find important. If those other parties want to address the issues, they can join the UA.

D. Mitarotonda said he agrees, and in hindsight it was poor judgment to cancel the meetings. He apologized to the assembly for that. He also said that they did not follow their charter this semester. What should they do about next semester?

K. Rich said that she doesn’t think they should change the charter, but rather stick with a chair and vice chair. The way things worked out this year, someone ended up taking charge and so it is just much better to have that all laid out.

K. Hover said that he thinks this year was more productive than last year. He agreed with Rich, but recognized that there was an effectiveness to what they did this semester. T. McConnochie said that the major thing to be learned from this experience is how important it is to involve all four people. He said they should return to operating under their charter, but make sure everyone stays involved.

D. Mitarotonda said that what they did this year wasn’t perfect, but he liked a lot of aspects of it. He said he would write down the things they benefited from for next year’s e-board. One way to keep everyone involved is to make each of the four people be involved in one of the four groups (Cornell Store, Gannett, etc.) and to be responsible for those organizations.

P. Dusseau said that they really need to have a leader who pulls the e-board together. The type of cooperation they are talking about is possible, but it takes a strong leader.

D. Mitarotonda pointed out that when the e-board met, he wasn’t really in charge. It was more of a cooperative effort.

P. Dusseau said they have all done a great job.

L. Lawrence said it would be good to invite Tommy Bruce to see what he has in mind for the structure for the Office of Assemblies.

P. Dusseau said that Peggy Beach is now serving as the director of the Office of Assemblies, but not in the capacity Hope did. That basically means that the Office of Assemblies will not have a director as they have known it in the future. As a result, that work is being absorbed by others. They are looking at removing the financial component and putting it in the Dean of Students office. Also, they had one financial person leave and another is on medical leave, so they are essentially three staff members down. As they’ve see, that does impact the assemblies.

D. Mitarotonda said they should go around the room and each person should say one thing that they would like next years UA to bring up or keep in mind about academic integrity. They should let next year’s assembly know what their mission is.

J. Nelson said that he would like to reiterate that he is not a fan of uniform, blanket codes. This issue should be addressed in involved, ongoing conversation and discussion. They also need to make sure they include women, minorities, and others who reason differently to be included in those conversations.

K. Hover said that academic integrity problems are more acute and the infrastructure they have to deal with the issue is cumbersome.

B. Kay said it is important to pay close attention to the style and tone of the code. It can be legalistic or idealistic and it’s important to decide which they would like. He personally thinks it ought to be more focused on intent and less on strictly what is right or wrong.

R. Wayne said that he recently gave a take-home exam in his class and he attached his definition of academic integrity on the last page. He gave examples of what plagiarism is so it would be clear. He said he’d like to make each faculty member aware that they can make the code fit each class they teach.

T. Setter said they need more study on the best ways to approach the problem and the extent of the problem currently.

G. Fahrner said whatever they do really needs to be communicated to the students, not just mentioned once at the beginning of orientation or something.

H. Granison said he thinks this is a huge issue that the UA may not be able to handle in a taskforce. He personally thinks a presidential appointment of a taskforce would be better. If they do address it though, he said it is important to involve all of the constituent groups, not just the UA.

L. Lawrence said they need to develop some sort of action timeline. If they don’t have a timeline or deadlines to bring the discussion to a close, it could go on forever.

N. Guest said that whatever code they do come up with should have teeth and emphasize student accountability so it is something that can actually be employed. It needs to reaffirm the values of the Cornell Community. The language should somehow reflect the identity of Cornell. For instance, Princeton’s code really defines them and we should try to have something similar in that regard.

D. Mitarotonda said they need to develop a culture where people feel comfortable turning in other students who they’ve observed cheating, a culture that says that academic integrity is important and they don’t stand for cheating.

K. Rich said that they need that type of culture and also a way for students to feel connected to the code. As a TA, she said she does feel awkward having to decide to turn someone in.

D. Achacoso thanked everyone, especially Tim and Martin for attending meetings.

E. Chu said they should look into what other schools do and what works. They should see how they can build a culture where cheating feels morally wrong, but students also see it as something that is detrimental to the school as w hole. If they can build a Cornell where they’re known to be free from academic violations, it is in their benefit.

T. McConnochie said he also feels more comfortable with a presidential coalition, but a taskforce will work if people and the administration stay involved. He said that there are three things he would like considered in the code. First is a presumption of trust of the students; for example, students don’t need to have a death certificate to go to a funeral. Secondly, they need to work on enforcement. The plumbing of the current system encourages faculty members and TAs not to report cheating. Finally, they need to have a situation that, if faculty feel they ought to report a situation, they have a uniform method of doing so.

D. Mitarotonda thanked Martin and Lisa for all their hard work.

P. Dusseau congratulated Doug on his election as student trustee next year.

V. Old Business

Review of UA Structure

VI. Adjournmenet

The meeting was adjourned at 6:23

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson
UA Clerk