President David Skorton should promptly approve the anti-discrimination clause that the University Assembly passed yesterday. This proposed legislation would fill a glaring hole in Campus Code of Conduct, which currently lacks any protection for students from harmful discrimination.

Adding this clause to the Code would eliminate the cognitive dissonance at a school which has an “Open Doors, Open Hearts, and Open Minds” mission statement yet lacks an enforceable anti-discrimination policy for students. “Open Doors” is an empty promise if the University does not empower campus officials with the tools they need to punish and deter acts of harmful discrimination.

Some have argued that an anti-discrimination clause would inhibit the University's ability to provide free speech, free association and free expression rights in a manner akin to the federal government. While we agree with this analysis, we deny that Cornell should provide such unrestrained First Amendment rights to its students in the first place.

Prevailing American political thought and constitutional law tends to direct government to act as an “impartial umpire” and provide a neutral forum for speech. A university like Cornell should not take this approach. Rather, it should actively intervene in fighting harmful discrimination, especially given the academic community’s keen awareness of the cultural, historical and institutional implications of discrimination.

Universities like Cornell should lead society in expansive and progressive anti-discrimination policies. They should not take cues from the government, where progress on effective hate crime legislation moves at a snail’s pace and courts consider sexual orientation only deserving of quasi-protections. Just as the University goes above and beyond state and federal law in providing benefits to same-sex partners, it should prohibit harmful discrimination against the 22 classes of individuals outlined in this clause. Federal law, by contrast, only provides protection to about half that number.

This anti-discrimination clause is the right fit for Cornell. It not only brings Cornell up to par in relation to its peer institutions, but it also resolves a discrepancy within the campus community. This proposed legislation offers students the types of protection against discrimination that parallel the protections already in place for faculty and staff.

Admittedly, the U.A.’s first attempt at crafting an anti-discrimination clause last year in the aftermath of the Chi Alpha controversy was clumsy. In seeking to ban all types of discrimination — regardless of their actual impact — the U.A. overreached, and Skorton rightfully rejected the policy as too broad. This time, however, the U.A. has produced a carefully-worded policy whereby discrimination is only punished if it unreasonably interferes with a student’s educational experience or living conditions.

Some dissenters have raised the valid point that it may be difficult to judge what acts of discrimination constitute actual interference with the educational experience. However, we are encouraged by the use of a “reasonableness standard” to evaluate these cases. If the policy is enacted, we will urge the Judicial Administrator to release further guidance on how she intends to interpret this “reasonable person standard.” In the meantime, we call on Skorton to approve this much-needed anti-discrimination clause in its current form, and send a message to campus that “Open Minds” means just that.