Contents:

Suspension issues, comments, questions

Unofficial policy summaries:

• A. Cornell, Sexual harassment policy

• B. Cornell, Academic misconduct policy

• C. Cornell, Financial irregularities policy

• D. Cornell, Dismissal policy

• E. Cornell, Standards of ethical conduct policy

• F. Cornell, Conflicts of commitment and interest policy

• G. Cornell, Grievance procedures (guidelines)

• H. AAUP, termination and suspension policy

• I. AAUP, minor sanctions policy

• J. Northwestern, disciplinary procedures

• K. Stanford, faculty discipline policy

• L. University of Michigan, dismissal, termination, terminal appointment

• M. James Madison, faculty misconduct and sanctions

• N. Western Washington Univ., termination and other severe sanctions

• O. Cornell, Campus Code of Conduct

• P. Cornell, Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty

Suspension issues, comments, questions:

1. Rationale for creating a "suspension" policy: existing Cornell policies provide due process for faculty accused of specific forms of misconduct (e.g., harassment, financial irregularities, academic misconduct), but provide no such due process for general accusations of misconduct that are not covered by these specific policies.

2. Possible strategies for creating a "suspension" policy (I can think of two, but there must be others):

a) Modify existing Dismissal procedure to include other severe sanctions (suspension, other?).

• Proposed additional text shown in bold type: "The university reserves the right to dismiss and discontinue the appointment of any member of its faculties, or apply other severe disciplinary sanctions such as demotion or suspension, on reasonable notice and after giving such member an opportunity to be heardƒ " Need to define "severe" sanctions; see #3 below.

• Should there be provision for "emergency" suspension pending final determination of sanctions? [see AAUP, Northwestern, U. of Michigan]

• Review all existing policies that refer to sanctions, and make necessary revisions.

b) Create new general policy on "faculty misconduct and sanctions" (see, for example, James Madison version)

• If new policy on discipline for misconduct is proposed, should there be disclaimer stating that specific types of misconduct (e.g., harassment, academic misconduct, financial irregularities, conflict of interest or commitment) trigger specific procedures in separate policies that supersede those contained in the new policy? [see James Madison policy]

• Should there be provision for "emergency" suspension pending final determination of sanctions? [see AAUP, Northwestern, U. of Michigan]

• Determine how various proposed sanctions, ranging from reprimand to dismissal, might trigger different procedures. In this case, is it necessary that the administration declare at the outset, or after a preliminary inquiry, what sanctions are being sought, in order to implement the proper procedures. Either refer to existing "Dismissal" procedures, or incorporate them within this new policy. See #3 below.

• Review all existing policies that refer to sanctions, and make necessary revisions.

c) Other strategies?

3. Should "severe" and "minor" sanctions be defined or distinguished from each other, to allow for different procedures, or should all sanctions be covered by the same procedures? If distinguished from each other, how is the borderline defined: "severe" might be defined as dismissal, suspension without pay; demotion in rank; other? If treated differently, should "minor" sanctions be appealable only through existing grievance procedures (after the imposition of sanctions) with "severe" sanctions triggering hearings (before the imposition of sanctions)?

• Note: Severe and minor sanctions are treated differently in AAUP policy; treated under a single policy in Northwestern, Stanford, James Madison, and Cornell's specialized policies, e.g., for academic misconduct; minor sanctions are not mentioned in Cornell dismissal policy, or U. of Michigan policy.

Should the severity of sanctions be made to correspond to the administrative level at which the sanctions are determined? For example: dismissal by Board of Trustees; suspension by president; minor sanctions (such as reprimand, or cut in pay) by dean.

• Precedents: Dismissal by Bd of Trustees (Cornell, AAUP); minor sanctions by "administration" - dean? (AAUP); all sanctions by Bd of Trustees (Northwestern); dismissal by Bd of Trustees, with all other sanctions by president (Stanford); Dismissal, demotion, suspension by Bd of Trustees (Michigan); all sanctions by vice president for academic affairs, appealable to Faculty Appeals Committee (James Madison).

4. Names/descriptions for behavior triggering hearings/sanctions:

• Faculty misconduct (James Madison)

• Failure to perform duties required of the position, or misfeasance or nonfeasance; or misconduct (Cornell, Dismissal policy)

• Sanctions/ disciplinary procedures for "adequate cause" (AAUP; Northwestern)

• Faculty discipline for "professional misconduct" (Stanford)

• Causes accepted by University usage, properly connected with the improvement and efficiency of the faculty, and consistent with the character of the tenure involved (U. of Michigan)

5. Note that in Cornell's Conflicts policy, the Dismissal procedure is cited, along with an additional statement that empowers the board appointed per Dismissal policy procedure to modify the sanctions proposed by the Provost, i.e., to impose other sanctions such as suspension or reprimand. This "power" of the board to modify sanctions doesn't seem to appear in the Dismissal policy itself.

6. Note that existing Cornell policies already provide for a range of sanctions (including suspension) after investigations and/or hearings: academic misconduct is most explicit, providing for administrative action to repair damage and/or disciplinary action ranging from reprimand to dismissal.

A. Policy: Cornell, Sexual harassment

Defined as: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, etc.

Complaint goes to: Office of Workforce Diversity, Equity & Life Quality [OWDELQ] either directly or through harassment advisors.

Procedure:
1. Mediation (Assoc Provost designates trained facilitator only if both parties agree); or
2. Investigation by OWDELQ investigator with optional faculty co-investigator designated by Dean of Faculty (after consulting with Assoc. Provost).
3. Investigator(s) prepare report to College Dean explaining charges and recommending sanctions and/or non-punitive measures.
4. Dean may review/modify recommendations.

Penalties: May include the following: verbal warning; written reprimand; requirement to attend training; work restrictions; salary reduction or limitation; suspension; dismissal (note: dismissal referred to TrusteesÍ Dismissal Procedures).

Appeal: If appeal is based on academic freedom or subordinate-supervisory academic relation, goes to AFPS committee; otherwise, use applicable college grievance procedures.

B. Policy: Cornell, Academic misconduct

Defined as: violations of standards of integrity in conduct of scholarly, scientific research and communication: plagiarizing, falsifying data, etc.

Complaint goes to: Dean of Faculty

Procedure:
1. Dean of Faculty (inquirer) conducts preliminary inquiry to determine if investigation is needed.
2. Notifications: Dean of Faculty notifies:

• a) Vice Provost for Research, if sponsored research is involved (who may take interim actions including sponsor notification);
• b) University Auditor, if financial irregularities are indicated;
• c) Vice Provost for Research and University Counsel, if there are possible criminal violations.

Penalties: Administrative action to repair damage and/or disciplinary action ranging from reprimand to dismissal.

Appeal: Applicable college grievance procedures.

C. Policy: Cornell, Financial irregularities

Defined as: embezzlement, fraud, or falsification of records to misappropriate assets.

Complaint goes to: University Audit Office, either directly, or through unit head.

Procedure:
1. University Audit Office conducts investigation.
2. Audit Office reports back to unit head and, if wrong-doing is found, to VP for Administration and Chief Financial Officer; VP for Financial Affairs; and University Counsel.
3. Unit head recommends disciplinary action to Univ. Auditor; for suspension or dismissal, approval must come from College Dean after consultation with Dean of Faculty.
4. If Auditor agrees with unit head recommendations, unit head carries out discipline.
5. If Auditor disagrees, an advisory committee (unit head, if not Dean; Univ. Auditor; VP for Financial Affairs and Univ. Controller; VP Human Resources; College Dean or designee; Dean of Faculty) attempts to resolve disagreement.
6. If committee (see #5) cannot resolve disagreement, VP for Administration and Chief Financial Officer, or Provost, make final disposition.

Penalties: Not specified, except that suspension or dismissal require approval of College Dean (after consulting with Dean of Faculty).

Appeal: None mentioned.

D. Policy: Cornell, Dismissal

Defined as: right of the Board of Trustees to "dismiss and terminate the appointment of any member of the staff of instruction and research for failure to perform the duties required of the position... or for such personal misfeasance [wrongful exercise of lawful authority] or nonfeasance [omission of act which should have been performed] as shall make him unfit to participate in the relationship of teacher and student."

Complaint goes to: College Dean.

Procedure:
1. Inform faculty member of complaint.
2. Investigate case.
3. Dean reports to president with recommendations.
4. President gives written statement of charges to faculty member.
5. Faculty member may request hearing before board appointed by president (2 faculty selected by president; 2 faculty selected by faculty member charged; and fifth faculty member selected by other four) who report findings and recommendations to president.
6. President appends report of hearing board to his own recommendations to Board of Trustees, who then may dismiss the faculty member.

Penalties: Dismissal.

Appeal: None.

E. Policy: Cornell, Standards of Ethical Conduct

Defined as: avoidance of abuse of power; fair and objective communication; responsible computer use; appropriate use of confidentiality; avoidance or disclosure of conflicts of interest and commitment; avoidance of financial irregularities; compliance with laws governing intellectual property; avoidance of kickbacks; meeting of reporting obligations; use of university resources or assets legally and properly; and avoidance of romantic or sexual relationships with persons over whom you have some authority.

Complaint goes to: immediate supervisor or, if supervisor is involved, next supervisory level; or, for violations of ethical conduct, appropriate university office (e.g., Audit, Counsel).

Procedure:
1. Investigation by appropriate office, depending on violation.
2. Disciplinary action in accordance with "applicable regulation," implemented by one of the following: supervisor, chair, dean, university VP, or responsible university office.

Penalties: not specified, except that retaliation or harassment of the "whistle-blower" (person reporting the ethical conduct violation) will not be tolerated.

Appeal: not specified.

F. Policy: Cornell, Conflicts of Commitment and Interest

Defined as: opportunity to influence the university in ways that could lead to personal gain (interest); or undertaking of external commitments which interfere with obligations to Cornell (commitment).

Complaint goes to: This policy does not envision enforcement based on complaints; rather, a "disclosure" procedure is implemented to uncover possible violations.

Procedure:
1. Faculty members complete annual disclosure statements which go to Dean (or Chair as designee).
2. Disclosure statements are evaluated by Dean.
3. Where problems are seen, "Dean or director shall make a determination which resolves and removes the conflict or appearance of conflict" informally. Faculty member must cooperate fully in such an informal review.
4. If faculty member objects to Dean's resolution, Provost creates advisory committee (Dean of Faculty plus 2 "senior" members of the faculty) to make recommendations to Provost.
5. Provost accepts, rejects, or modifies recommendations of advisory committee.

Penalties: Not specified, except that if final determination requires termination, then "dismissal" policy applies (with 5-member board appointed by president). The appointed board may modify the sanctions proposed by the Provost.

Appeal: If faculty member disagrees with Provost, he/she may request further consideration by offering other relevant information or explanations, with University Counsel acting as advisor to the Provost. Provost then makes final and binding determination.

G. Policy: Cornell, Grievance procedures (guidelines)

Defined as: right of faculty member who believes himself or herself to be aggrieved to obtain consideration and, possibly, redress of the grievance, defined as "an injustice or harm arising from a specific situation involving acts of alleged unfairness which the individual regards as just cause for protest on his or her own behalf."

Grievable actions may involve: reward, academic freedom, work assignment, working conditions, discrimination, and the grievance procedures themselves.

Complaint goes to: not specified; procedures are developed within each college unit.

Procedure:
1. For issues involving harassment, notification of Office of Affirmative Action must occur.
2. Issues involving appointment, promotion, and tenure are excluded from this procedure, and are referred to the Committee on AFPS.
3. This procedure does not include the right to "abnormal participation in or obstruction of the normal decision making processes;" grievance procedures can be invoked only after direct negotiations fail.
4. Each college establishes specific procedures, including the designation of a committee to handle grievances.
5. Committee is charged with either facilitating a resolution between the parties, or making recommendations. Grievance procedure, and therefore the committeeÍs recommendations, are advisory to the dean, president, and trustees.
6. Committee submits written report to Dean, setting forth findings and recommendations.
7. Dean must submit written notice of acceptance or rejection of committeeÍs recommendations to faculty member(s) and others involved, Dean of Faculty, and Provost.

Penalties: Sanctions may be reversed, modified, or affected as a consequence of the grievance proceeding (i.e., if the dean/president/provost chooses to alter the sanctions after receiving the committeeÍs recommendations), but the grievance proceeding itself cannot issue or modify any sanctions.

Appeal: Review at university level by Committee on AFPS.

H. Policy: AAUP, Termination and Suspension

Defined as: the right of the institution to dismiss or suspend a faculty member, but "only for adequate cause" which is directly and substantially related to the fitness of the faculty member as a teacher or researcher.

Complaint goes to: not specified.

Procedure:
1. Appropriate administrative officer (e.g., Dean) discusses charges with faculty member.
2. Informal faculty committee inquiry (possibly AFPS, but not clear for Cornell) may recommend dismissal/suspension to president.
3. President or designee prepares statement of charges.
4. Faculty Hearing Committee (not clear what this is for Cornell) hears from faculty member charged; committee members with conflicts are excluded.
5. Pending decision, and only after consultation with a committee such as AFPS concerning all conditions of such an action, suspension with pay or re-assignment may be invoked, but "only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance."

Penalties: Hearing Committee may recommend to president dismissal if it concludes that "adequate cause... has been established;" or may recommend an academic penalty less than dismissal (e.g., suspension); or may find that adequate cause has not been established.

Appeal: Faculty member may request review by Governing Board (Bd of Trustees?) based on the existing record, but allowing for new arguments. The Board either sustains action, or returns the case to the hearing committee with specific objections. In this latter case, the hearing committee makes new recommendations to the Board.

I. Policy: AAUP, Minor sanctions

Defined as: not specified.

Complaint goes to: not specified.

Procedure:
1. Administration notifies the faculty member of the proposed sanction (and presumably of the charge as well).
2. Opportunity is provided for the faculty member to persuade the administration that sanction should not be imposed (but not through formal or informal "hearing" or other committee).

Penalties: not specified.

Appeal: Applicable grievance procedures.

J. Policy: Northwestern, Disciplinary Procedures (includes suspension, dismissal, and minor penalties such as reprimand)

Defined as: the right of the University to to dismiss or suspend a faculty member, or impose a "minor sanction" such as a reprimand, but only "for adequate cause" which is directly and substantially related to the fitness of the faculty member as a teacher or researcher [similar to AAUP wording].

Complaint goes to: not specified.

Procedure:
1. Administration (president or designee) provides charge against faculty member.
2. Resolution is attempted based on discussion between faculty member and administration.
3. If discussion is unsuccessful, charges and faculty response go to "Faculty Committee on Cause" for mediation. Note: In the case of a minor sanction, faculty member may request mediation, review, and appeal by the Committee on Cause and UFRPTDAP (defined below) as in cases of severe sanctions such as dismissal and suspension.
4. If mediation fails, Committee on Cause advises the administration as to whether there is "probable cause" for implementing further procedures leading to dismissal or suspension.
5. If the administration then decides to proceed, it specifies the sanctions sought (i.e., dismissal, suspension, or some other severe or minor sanction).
6. Faculty member may request a hearing by an ad hoc panel of UFRPTDAP (Univ Fac Reappoint, Promotion, Tenure, and Dismissal Appeals Panel) on the charges to make findings of fact and recommendations about sanctions. Committee members with conflicts will be dismissed.
7. Pending decision, and only after consultation with UFRPTDAP exec. committee concerning all conditions of such an action, suspension with pay may be invoked, but only if "immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened by continuance." [similar to AAUP wording]
8. If panel cannot establish adequate cause, but Administration rejects this finding, opportunity will be provided for response by faculty member before case goes to Board of Trustees; panel may establish adequate cause for dismissal but recommend sanction less than dismissal; for any severe sanction (i.e., suspension or dismissal), the faculty member may request that the record of the case be transmitted to the Board of Trustees.
9. Board may return proceedings to panel with specific objections; in this case, the panel will reconsider, and resubmit recommendations to the Board of Trustees.

Penalties: Severe penalties (dismissal or suspension) and minor penalties (reprimand) are mentioned. Procedures seem similar for all classes of penalties.

Appeal: not specified; decision of Board appears to be final.

K. Policy: Stanford, Faculty discipline (includes suspension, dismissal, and minor penalties such as censure) for "professional misconduct"

Defined as: the right of the university to maintain the integrity of teaching and research and preserve academic freedom.

Complaint goes to: Provost.

Procedure:
1. Factual investigation is initiated by the Provost before charges are made.
2. Provost charges faculty member, who is given the opportunity to reply, and to settle by agreement (with president's approval).
3. Faculty member may contest the charges, in which case the Provost provides formal, written charges and proposed sanction to faculty member and Advisory Board.
4. The faculty member files with the Board a statement of his/her defense, disputed facts, and any additional information.
5. The Board may select an outside Hearing Officer if there is a dispute about "material issues of historical fact" to hold an evidentiary hearing; otherwise, the Board proceeds immediately with the Final Hearing.
6. If a majority of the Board concludes that "professional misconduct" has occurred, it recommends appropriate sanctions to the president.
7. The president may resubmit the case to the Board with a statement of questions or objections, in which case the Board will reconsider the case.
8. The president then makes a final decision; in the case of dismissal, it requires approval of the Board of Trustees.

Penalties: Include, but are not limited to censure; a fine and/or temporary reduction in pay; suspension without pay; indefinite reduction in pay; dismissal.

Appeal: not specified.

L. Policy: University of Michigan, Dismissal, Demotion, Terminal Appointment

Defined as: the right of the university to recommend dismissal, demotion, or terminal appointment based on "causes accepted by University usage, properly connected with the improvement and efficiency of the faculty, and consistent with the character of the tenure involved."

Complaint goes to: Provost and executive VP for academic affairs, or to executive authority (dean, director, or executive committee).

Procedure:
1. President may direct that faculty member be relieved of some or all of his/her duties (without loss of pay) pending resolution of the case, in exceptional instances which threaten direct and immediate injury to the public reputation or essential functions of the university.
2. Two procedures, one for matters internal to the administrative unit (subsection 4) and one for matters of general university concern (subsection 5): the president shall determine under which procedure the case will be handled.
3. "Subsection 4" procedures:

• a) Executive authority (e.g., dean) shall give written notice to faculty member and "Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs" [SACUA] of charge, and right of faculty member to request hearing.
• b) Dean shall investigate the case and, if requested by faculty member, provide for a hearing.
• c) Hearing committee shall issue report with conclusions and recommendations; if dismissal, demotion or terminal appointment is recommended, the report will state the deficiencies or acts of misconduct on which the proposed penalties are based.
• d) Faculty member may request a review by standing committee on tenure; alternatively, if Dean chooses to impose sanctions against the recommendations of the hearing committee, the faculty member may request a review of the case per subparagraph (d) [not included in document].
• e) The review committee files written report; then the Dean notifies the president of his/her final recommendations.
• f) The president then issues recommendations and reasons therefor; the faculty member and SACUA may respond with written comments, which are then forwarded with the president's report to the Board of Trustees for final action.

• a) SACUA designates its standing Committee on Tenure as hearing committee, which notifies faculty member of charges (prepared by Provost and exec VP for academic affairs), and right of faculty member to request hearing.
• b) Hearing committee investigates the case, and files written report with SACUA with conclusions and recommendations; if dismissal, demotion or terminal appointment is recommended, the report will state the conduct on which the proposed penalties are based.
• c) Faculty member may request review by SACUA, which may or may not conduct a hearing, in which case it may remand the case back to the hearing committee.
• d) SACUA files hearing committee's report and recommendations with faculty member, president, provost, executive VP for academic affairs, and dean, along with its own comments; within 10 days, these parties may file written comments with the president.
• e) President formulates recommendations which are sent to faculty member and SACUA; they may submit written comments to the president; the entire record is then sent to the Board for final action.

Penalties: Dismissal, demotion, or terminal appointment; per Jeff Frumkin, Academic Human Resources, also applies to suspension.

Appeal: not specified.

M. Policy: James Madison University, Faculty misconduct and sanctions

Defined as: conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of faculty membership including, but not limited to: academic dishonesty, violation of academic or professional ethics, incompetence, disregard or failure to fulfill academic responsibilities, moral turpitude, harassment, felonious [i.e., serious] criminal act.

Complaint goes to: Provost and executive VP for academic affairs, or to executive authority (dean, director, or executive committee).

Procedure:
1. The following special types of misconduct have specific procedures which supersede these: harassment and discrimination; research or scholarly misconduct; disability discrimination; criminal activity.
2. Inquiry: academic head may determine that an allegation of misconduct does not merit a formal inquiry and may discuss the matter with the faculty member, filing a report with the dean, and faculty member (who may place a written response in his/her file).
3. Faculty member may request a hearing of the college's standing committee, which shall be convened by the dean.
4. Hearing: Alternatively, the academic unit head may request that the dean conduct a formal inquiry, in which case the dean convenes the college's standing committee, as in #3.
5. Hearing committee provides summary of findings and recommendations for sanctions to vice president for academic affairs with copies to dean, faculty member, and academic unit head. Dean may add any other recommendations.

Penalties: "Sanctions for misconduct may include, but are not limited to, a reprimand, oral or written, private or public; a period of suspension without pay; a reduction in salary; a reduction in rank; removal of privileges; or dismissal.

Appeal: "...if an appealable sanction is imposed on a faculty member by the vice president for academic affairs, the faculty member may appeal that sanction under Faculty Handbook, Section III.A.9.g." (Faculty member appeals to the Faculty Appeals Committee; vice president for academic affairs appoints a respondent to represent the administration; the Faculty Appeals Committee may convene a new hearing.)

N. Policy: Western Washington Univ., termination and other severe sanctions

Defined as: Adequate cause for a dismissal [or other severe sanction] will be related, directly and materially, to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacities as teachers or researchers. Dismissal [or other severe sanctions] will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights. To warrant a removal for cause, conduct must in a substantial way adversely affect the faculty member's academic, scholarly, or professional ability to carry out his or her University responsibilities. In cases in which the faculty member's behavior is alleged to have adversely affected another person, the impact of the faculty member's behavior must have affected the other person's ability to carry out his or her academic, scholarly, or professional University responsibilities in an intentional and malicious way.

A faculty member ƒ may be dismissed for cause from his or her position [or be subjected to other severe sanctions] only for one or more of the following reasons:

1) A serious and persistent neglect of faculty duties.
2) Unlawful discrimination or sexual harassment. (See Appendix C of WWU FH.)
3) Serious scientific or scholarly misconduct, consisting of, but not limited to, significant misrepresentation of credentials, falsification of data, plagiarism, abuse of confidentiality, violation of regulations applicable to research, or failure to meet minimum standards of professional competence.
4) Conviction of a felony.
5) Intentional and malicious interference with the scientific, scholarly, and academic activities of others.

Complaint goes to: Dean or Provost; after which Provost may institute proceedings.

Procedure:
1. Appropriate administrative officer attempts informal resolution with faculty member.
2. Informal inquiry (if resolution per #1 fails) by 3-person panel from Faculty Senate committee.
3. Provost formally charges faculty member (if resolution per #2 fails); gives written statement to faculty member and president of faculty senate.
4. Hearing panel is constituted from Faculty Senate committee, presided over by non-voting Hearing Officer appointed by presidents of university and faculty senate.
5. Emergency suspension with pay is permitted [see AAUP text].
6. Hearing panel makes recommendation to president either that adequate cause has or has not been established, with recommendations for sanctions, if appropriate.
7. Unless challenged by either party, or if the president elects to reconsider (remanding for further consideration), the hearing panelÍs recommendations become final decision.
8. If the president rejects the recommendations of the hearing panel, each party comments, and the issue goes to the Board of Trustees.
9. The board of trustees may support the panel, reverse its decision, or remand, in which case it goes back to the panel and then back to the board for a final decision.

Penalties: Severe sanctions (those that involve reduction in salary or temporary suspension with or without pay; and that in no way abrogate tenure) and dismissal.

Appeal: none.

O. Policy: Cornell, Campus code of conduct -- Title Two (Regulations for the Maintenance of Public Order); Title Three (Regulations for the Maintenance of the Educational Environment); and Title Four (Judicial structure and procedure)

Defined as:
(Title Two) disrupting university operations, refusal to comply with lawful order, carrying firearms, hazing, discrimination, disrupting invited speakers or recruitment activity, building symbolic structures without permit; or

(Title Three) refusal to comply with lawful order, misuse of university or other records (fraud, forgery, etc), furnishing false information, bribery, misuse of university funds, threaten or use physical force, endanger life or property, harassment, fraud (bad checks, etc.), stealing, trafficking in goods and services not compatible with university interests, dealing with controlled substances, attempting or urging others to violate these regulations, assaulting or injuring on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc., sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape, damaging computer services, committing lewd acts, hazing, engaging in disorderly conduct.

Complaint goes to: Office of Judicial Administrator, but president or designee must initiate enforcement under Title Two.

Procedure: (Per Title Four) Only applies to non-job-related misconduct; for all job-related misconduct, "determination of whether there was a code violation [which involves conduct clearly arising in the course of employment] shall be made by the appropriate university administrative authority or department head or dean who shall also assess sanctions and/or remedies where appropriate." Faculty may appeal such jurisdictional determinations to the judicial administrator.

1. Under Title Two:
a) Each case gets a University hearing panel of 8 persons (2 students, 3 faculty recommended by the Dean of Faculty, 2 non-faculty employees, and a "senior" faculty nominated by president to serve as non-voting chair).
b) Board serves written notice including charge, and, after hearing, renders decision including sanctions.

2. Under Title Three:
a) Each case gets a University hearing panel of 6 persons (1 student, 3 faculty, 1 non-faculty employee, and a "senior" faculty nominated by president to serve as non-voting chair).
b) Judicial Administrator shall "cause an investigation to be made" but only if violation is non- job-related.
c) Judicial Administrator may offer "summary decision" before issuing charges, or refer matter to Hearing Board. Note that suspension or dismissal may not be assessed via summary decision.
d) In extraordinary circumstances (for public order and safety), president may temporarily suspend the accused pending the hearing of charges.

Penalties:
Under Title Two: Ejection from university (only until the hearing of formal charges); temporary suspension pending hearing of charges (only to assure public safety).

For faculty (and other employees): written reprimand; fine between $20 and $500; suspension from university duties not to exceed 1 month "with loss of salary but without loss of other rights and privileges;" dismissal.

Note: prior record considered, with penalty for repeated violation more severe than for the first.

Under Title Three: For faculty (and other employees): oral warning, written reprimand, educational tools (counseling, apology, etc.), community service or fines, suspension from university duties not to exceed 1 month "with loss of salary but without loss of other rights and privileges;" dismissal.

Appeal: Under Titles Two and Three, appeal to University Review Board consisting of 4 persons (1 student, 1 faculty recommended by Dean of Faculty, 1 non-faculty employee, and a "senior" faculty nominated by president to serve as non-voting chair. Appeal Board makes final decision, affirming, reversing, or modifying (but not increasing) sanctions imposed by Hearing Board. Under Title Three, it may remand a case to the hearing panel. Faculty may elect to have the penalty of dismissal or suspension reviewed instead per Board of Trustees dismissal procedure (Title Four, Article IX.F.3)

P. Policy: Cornell, Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status of the Faculty

Defined as: Scope of concerns include 1. academic freedom and responsibility; 2. freedom of teaching and learning; 3. professional status of the faculty, including but not limited to appointments, promotion, retirement, separation, tenure and other related matters. The committee may "Receive and review written complaints brought by or against a Faculty member with respect to matters involving academic freedom and responsibility and freedom of teaching and learning and any other matters that might affect his or her professional reputation, impair the execution of his or her professional and University responsibilities, adversely affect his or her economic status, lead to his or her dismissal, or otherwise alter the terms of his or her employment."

Complaint goes to: typically goes to grievance procedures first; then to this committee.

Procedure:
1. Committee receives written complaint;
2. Committee prepares written draft report of findings and recommendations; sent to complainant, other principals in the case, Univ. Faculty Committee, and Dean of Faculty;
3. Committee reviews and replies to draft report; and prepares final report sent to same people and, when appropriate, to president and provost.

Penalties: All conclusions and recommendations are advisory, unless all involved agree otherwise in writing.

Appeal: Where the committee renders a decision brought in a complaint on its merits, such decision is final and is not subject to further appeal within the organization of the university faculty.

back to index