On May 14, our student organization was informed by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards that we had been anonymously accused of violating the Cornell Student Code of Conduct. Despite our good-faith compliance with OSCCS’s procedures, an office that promises due process, student justice and democratic governance kept us in the dark. After 52 days of silence, merely one day after the announcement of our fall recruitment schedule, we were struck with a temporary suspension. There was no room for negotiation, discourse or the opportunity to defend ourselves. We write this guest column not to absolve our responsibility to improve our organization, but rather to convey a broader concern: the undemocratic nature of OSCCS harms the very student body that it claims to serve.
The day we received OSCCS’s complaint, we immediately began taking the appropriate steps to work towards a speedy resolution. We provided the names and contact information of all of our members, made ourselves available for interviews and immediately reached out to OSCCS to inquire about how we could aid the investigation.
After learning about the available avenues for recourse, on June 13, we requested an Alternative Resolution. AR is a voluntary dialogue between the two parties involved in a complaint, in which OSCCS offers a sanction; if the accused party chooses to accept the recommendation, “the matter will be resolved with a written agreement” absent a formal hearing. On June 24, our request for AR was forwarded to OSCCS leadership. To this day — 92 days later — we still have not received an AR proposal despite multiple follow-up requests.
On July 8, we met with investigator Eleni Gordinier. She told us that a suspension was “unlikely,” since they are traditionally imposed only when organizations have been indicted for “several years of hazing,” quelling our fears of being suspended for the fall semester. In line with OSCCS’s request, the existence of this investigation was kept within our leadership. OSCCS interviewed select members of our organization in the following weeks. We received no further correspondence after this point.
Amidst a mass of unanswered emails and unresolved questions, we abruptly received a notice from Christina Liang, Senior Associate Dean of OSCCS, stating that our organization was temporarily suspended, effective immediately. We met with Liang an hour later, where she told us the guidelines of our suspension: we are prohibited from recruiting new members, conducting informational chats with Cornell students and socializing as an organization. We were even directed to “be mindful” when spending time with fellow members of our organization, regardless of our personal relationships, to avoid appearing to violate the terms of our suspension.
In a fashion reminiscent of an authoritarian regime, we have been limited in our ability to speak, assemble and participate in the free exchanges of ideas that every Cornell student is entitled to.
Attached to our suspension notice, we were further provided with the investigator’s summary of findings based on their interviews. Without providing us direct transcripts — objective evidence that could then be used to evaluate the merits of our suspension — we were given edited commentary on how the investigator perceived the interviewees’ responses. Authored as a one-sided, error-laden narrative, even calling our organization and members by the wrong names, the investigator’s findings could be based on something as subjective as the tone of an interviewee’s voice.
What is most egregious about these prohibitions is that they are not the result of a fair proceeding. A just process necessitates that the authority empowered to impose and enforce sanctions does so swiftly; otherwise, the accused party is left punished by inaction rather than an informed assessment of the allegations that they face.
Although we are aware that OSCCS is occupied by many issues, our organization has already felt the punitive effects of this unwarranted delay. This uncertainty leaves our organization with no ability to improve our situation, helpless at the hands of an office that unilaterally creates the rules of these proceedings with no student input.
If the Student Code of Conduct is meant to set out the institutional tools to safeguard students, it is remiss that the ones being protected lack any voice in formulating its standards, or have any insight into what occurs behind the closed doors and unresponsive inboxes of their office.
Further, an investigation can only be fair if it includes the testimony of those who can defend the accused. OSCCS’s own Procedures state, “The Complainant and the Respondent will have an equal opportunity to participate in the investigation, including an equal opportunity to be heard, submit evidence and suggest witnesses who may have relevant information.” As such, the investigation must be “timely, thorough and impartial and to provide for a fair and reliable gathering of the facts.” Our past and present leadership were never contacted for an interview, despite multiple repeated requests to sit for one; when we finally received a response, our interviews were canceled hours before they were scheduled to begin.
Though neither of us was personally involved in the alleged offenses, OSCCS has had no trouble reaching out to us when they need information, and we have fulfilled all of their requests in a timely manner. As busy students, we find it unprofessional that our diligence has not been reciprocated — in a disappointingly ironic manner, the OSCCS has violated each of its own guarantees.
OSCCS claims that it “incorporates restorative practices to build a culture of community and healing rather than a community that centers around judgment and punishment.” In reality, it seems as though punishment without judgment is OSCCS’s standard practice. Rather than “building,” this office’s procedures have degraded the community that we have worked so hard to cultivate. Not only our organization, but clubs across campus and the culture that they have formed play an integral role in our student body’s experiences. If we want to preserve the longevity of these defining elements of being a Cornell student, OSCCS must treat our organizations with integrity and fairness.
As upperclassmen who both joined our organization during the first semester of our college careers, we cannot fully express in writing how appreciative we are for the family that we have found here. Our fellow members are some of our first friends on campus, and the people who we will continue to cherish most after we leave. Although we would not be able to guarantee a particular outcome, if this were a fair proceeding, we would at least be afforded the opportunity to defend our community.
Owen Spargo ‘26 is a student in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. He can be reached at oks3@cornell.edu.
Fiona Yin ‘27 is a student in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. She can be reached at fgy3@cornell.edu.
