President Rosenbury announces pilot for revised Student Code of Conduct

How the new Student Code of Conduct pilot for Barnard shifts disciplinary power and student involvement. 

Office of the President

Photo by Haley Scull/The Barnard Bulletin

By Anika Bahirwani and Riya Mahanta

January 13, 2026

On November 13, 2025, President Laura Rosenbury announced the release of a pilot document for Barnard’s Student Code of Conduct, Honor Code, and Conduct Process, which will “govern all student conduct taking place from January 1 to August 31, 2026.” The document creates a Peer Educator program by integrating Barnard’s current Student Code of Conduct, Residential Life and Housing Policies, and Honor System into one document.

The document was developed over 15 months by the ten-member Student Conduct Committee, whose members were appointed by President Rosenbury and Dean Leslie Grinage in the summer of 2024. This committee included Adrienne Chacón (BC ’26), Ella Ferguson (BC ’26), Tiferet Grossman (BC ’26), Director of Student Intervention and Success Ange Concepcion, Director of Family Engagement Katelyn Dutton, Vice Dean Nikki Youngblood Giles, Vice Dean Holly Tedder, Professor Gale Kenny, Professor Maria Rivera Maulucci, and Professor Christian Rojas. The Student Conduct Committee also worked in close partnership with the Faculty Governance and Procedures Committee (FGP). President Rosenbury highlighted the contributions of FGP members, particularly Professor Severin Fowles, for their role in shaping the pilot.

Adrienne Chacón informed The Barnard Bulletin in an email correspondence that integrating Barnard’s important documents and programs was one of the committee’s earliest priorities: “Things that might incur disciplinary action like academic dishonesty or [residential life] issues were decentralized. Having all of this information in one place was more accessible for students in knowing their rights,” she said. 

Chacón, who joined the Student Conduct Committee at the start of her term as SGA Vice President for Policy, also emphasized that student members played an active role from the start. She stated: “On the committee, students weren’t just giving feedback. We were always involved in updating the language and bringing forward the concerns our peers presented.” 

A major feature of the pilot document is the creation of a Peer Educator program, which will train students to answer procedural questions, guide peers through the conduct process, and provide support. Chacón sees the Peer Educator initiative as central to the pilot’s emphasis on restorative justice. Referencing similar programs at Columbia, she said: “We saw the potential for the same thing at Barnard.” She continued: “Incorporating peers who can appraise students of their rights and also provide support would be more in line with values of creating a path forward, instead of just being punitive.”

The pilot also introduces a Faculty-Student Resolution option for academic dishonesty cases; it creates a Student Conduct Board composed of students, faculty, and staff for cases that may warrant suspension or expulsion, and additional appellate panels. For decisions that could result in permanent separation from Barnard, the Student Conduct Board will now require a four-fifths majority vote. This change marks a significant shift from the previous Student Code of Conduct, which placed decision-making authority in the hands of a single Conduct Administrator following a conduct meeting. Under the pilot, this responsibility is now redistributed to a multi-member board, which increases collective deliberation. 

On the topic of peer feedback, Chacón told The Barnard Bulletin that “getting visibility and feedback from faculty and students has been a constant goal, especially for the students on the committee, so this is the perfect time to share your experience, and possibly even make a change.”

President Rosenbury encouraged the community to read the full document and attend prospective listening sessions in the spring semester, writing that “although the 15 months of deliberation emphasized differences of opinion within our community, they also highlighted what brings us together: a shared desire to support student growth and maintain a safe, respectful environment for all students.”