A. Jurisdiction in General
All violations of the Campus Code of Conduct by a student, member of the University faculty, other employee of the University, or University-registered organization shall be processed through the campus judicial system, consistent with the principles stated in Article II of Title One, except as otherwise provided in Section C below.
B. Jurisdiction over Students
1. The term student shall be interpreted to mean any person, whether or not incidentally on the University payroll, who is currently registered with the University as:
a. a degree candidate in any of Cornell’s undergraduate or graduate divisions;
b. a special student in the undergraduate divisions; or
c. a non-degree-candidate in the graduate school.
2. The term student shall be interpreted to mean also persons not officially registered, and not faculty members or other University employees, if they are:
a. currently enrolled in or taking classes at the University;
b. currently using University facilities or property, or the property of a University-related residential organization, in connection with academic activities; or
c. currently on leave of absence or under suspension from being a student of the University.
C. Jurisdiction over Faculty and Other Employees
1. Faculty members and other University employees include those who are incidentally taking classes at the University.
2. The procedures of this Code shall not apply to faculty members or other University employees who are accused of employment-related misconduct. Instead, the applicable administrative process shall apply, such as that described in Cornell University Policy 6.11.3.
a. Should any accusation or complaint of a Code violation be made to or by a department head, dean, supervisor, or the Judicial Administrator and involve conduct by a faculty member or other University employee clearly arising in the course of employment, then the department head, dean, or appropriate University administrative authority shall determine whether there was a Code violation and shall also assess penalties and/or remedies where appropriate.
(1) The accused may make a jurisdictional appeal to the Judicial Administrator, i.e., raise a question whether the alleged conduct arose in the course of employment and so call for rechanneling into the judicial system.
(2) The accused may make an appeal on the merits of the administrative disposition through appropriate faculty channels or the employee grievance procedure, but not through the judicial system.
b. If an accusation or complaint of a Code violation comes before a department head, dean, or supervisor about conduct by a faculty member or other University employee not arising in the course of employment, or there is uncertainty whether it does, the accusation or complaint shall be referred to the Judicial Administrator for channeling into the administrative process or the judicial system.
c. The criterion on which the Judicial Administrator shall channel between the administrative process and the judicial system is whether the conduct is employment related. In reaching such a decision, the Judicial Administrator shall consult with the Dean of the Faculty if the case involves a faculty member or the Vice President for Human Resources if the case involves a non-faculty employee. The Judicial Administrator shall make his or her own decision after such consultation.
d. Upon imposition of a penalty of suspension or dismissal upon a faculty member by the University Hearing Board, the faculty member may choose to appeal to an arbitration committee (as described in Cornell University Policy 6.2.10) in lieu of appeal to the University Review Board. Any penalty imposed on a non-faculty employee is subject to review either pursuant to the applicable grievance process (such as that described in Cornell University Policy 6.11.4) or by appeal to the University Review Board, as the employee may choose.
Last Updated: August 27, 2017 at 11:30 am