The votes from this weekend's Honor Code referendum are in, and they make several things clear.
First, a majority of undergraduates value the distinctive trust, responsibility and ownership of a fully student-run Honor Code. Despite the many arguments offered in favor of adding faculty to the Honor Committee, 1,215 people voted against the measure — more than twice the number who opposed any of the other three proposals.
Second, students aren't fully comfortable with the Code as it stands. The amendment permitting accused students to have a friend present when first confronted by investigators passed with just over the needed 75 percent support. The last two amendments — which would have required the committee to tape all of its proceedings and to consider student intent when setting punishments — garnered strong majorities of more than 70 percent. Although neither one had quite enough votes to pass, both clearly resonated with student concerns about the code's fairness.
We hope these results will spark a public, open, well-informed reevaluation of the way the Honor Code operates. Making sure the code is both trusted and trustworthy is the best way to promote academic honesty.
A lack of information about the committee's internal process has made it hard for many students to make up their minds — a majority abstained in this weekend's vote. In the coming discussion, we hope those most familiar with the code will do everything they can to inform the campus about how it works, in practice as well as in theory. Honor Committee members and the administrators who support the committee must keep details of specific cases in confidence, but they should not hold back from publicly discussing the code itself. Faculty who have watched the code operate, alumni and current students who have stood accused or been called as witnesses, and students who have leveled accusations or seen friends go through the process all have valuable perspectives to add to this discussion.
The more we know, the better able we will be to make good choices.
— The Daily Princetonian Opinion Board
Read More
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
Go big or go home: the case for a single Lawnparties
Sarah ParkConsolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.
Consolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.
Princeton must retire the Atatürk Professorship
Greg ArzoomanianWhile no professor has held the title since Atatürk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies emeritus Heath W. Lowry departed in 2013, the position remains open for new candidates. Just as Princeton exempted Wilson’s name from celebration due to his racist ideologies, it must do the same for the Atatürk Professorship: It must be retired.
While no professor has held the title since Atatürk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies emeritus Heath W. Lowry departed in 2013, the position remains open for new candidates. Just as Princeton exempted Wilson’s name from celebration due to his racist ideologies, it must do the same for the Atatürk Professorship: It must be retired.