Protecting Student Rights

Last year, the Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC) proposed lowering the evidentiary standard to "preponderance of the evidence" from the current standard of "clear and convincing" for Campus Code of Conduct hearings. In non-legal terms, the difference between the two standards is that the current standard requires the Judicial Administrator to prove that there is a very significant likelihood (75-80%) that the accused was responsible for violating the Campus Code of Conduct, while preponderance only requires a majority (51%) likelihood.

This may not seem like a big deal, but picture this: The JA proposing harsher penalties for Black and other minority students, members of the University Hearing and Review Board harboring implicit biases that allow them to "justify" a majority likelihood of responsibility for Black and other minority students, leading to devastating consequences for such students, such as suspension or expulsion.

Additionally, many students are low-income and thus are unable to afford an attorney, often going to a Judicial Codes Counselor (JCC), typically a law student, because its the only source of quality representation and advocacy accessible to them. By comparison, many employees at the JA's Office are attorneys with possibly years of litigation experience, so the difference in resources and knowledge between the JA and the student is extremely significant.

My position on the matter is best conveyed with the following quote

"If you value eliminating bias and mitigating its damaging and sometimes life-altering effects on minority students at Cornell — and you should — then oppose lowering the standard of evidence to a preponderance of the evidence."

- Gabe Kaufman '18, Chair of the University Assembly (2016-2018), Chair of the CJC (2015-2016), Cornell Should Not Lower the Standard of Evidence in the Campus Code of Conduct

Given the racial and socioeconomic bias in our national criminal justice system, which uses the highest evidentiary standard in the legal system ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), it would be irresponsible for the University Assembly to adopt a lower evidentiary standard.

Even in a Utopian situation without any bias of any kind, do you want to make it easier for a powerful JA and potentially biased University Hearing and Review Board impose potentially life-changing consequences on you?

As your representative, I will fight this fundamentally flawed proposal at the University Assembly level, ensure an independent JCC office and a fair adjudication process for all students.

If you want learn more about these proposed changes and what the JCCs have to say about them, click here.