As it stands, Honor Code is unjust

This weekend the undergraduate student body will have our first chance to reform the Honor Code. When we vote in class elections, we will also vote on four amendments I've proposed to fix some problems in the Code. These amendments don't attack the Code itself but try to make its implementation fairer.

The Honor Committee doesn't currently consider whether a student intended to cheat on a test in determining guilt or punishment. Until a few years ago, the intent of the accused student played a role in determining guilt. That was changed, and now the Honor Constitution reads, "Documented evidence and plausibility of method, in the absence of demonstrated intent, may be enough to convict."

The standard punishment for a violation is a one year suspension. A student could gain an unfair advantage in a testing situation unknowingly, yet still be suspended for at least one year. This is unjust. Though students should be punished for cheating, if they have made an honest mistake and gained an unfair advantage unintentionally, their intent should also be considered. The first part of the proposed amendment requires intent to be considered in the punishment phase. The Code itself would not be watered down; guilt would be determined like before. But through this reform, in cases where intent is unclear, the most a convicted student would receive is academic probation and a failing grade on the test.

The main criticism of this idea is that intent is hard to prove and difficult to deal with. But in dealing with such serious matters, not doing something just because it is hard to do denies accused students their rights to a just proceeding. Certainly, a failing grade and academic probation are not merely a slap on the wrist.

My second amendment proposes to add two faculty members to the committee. Currently, allegations of cheating on in-class exams are handled by the Honor Committee, made up of only students, and allegations of cheating on take-home work is handled by the Committee on Discipline, with students, faculty, and administrators. We should try to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible from the hearing process. With age comes some wisdom, and faculty would provide the committee with more perspectives — the greater the differences, the less possible it becomes for biases to dominate decisions.

The Honor Committee itself has recognized the importance of faculty administrators. About two weeks ago, the USG passed two amendments to the Honor Constitution upon the urging of the Committee. One was to make an administrator the official Procedural Adviser, a person who advises the accused of hearing procedures. The rationale behind this was that the most time a student could be a committee member was three and a half years, and that a Dean, who remains for an extended period of time, would have greater experience in dealing with the Code's intricacies.

My proposal to add faculty members to the committee achieves a comparable result. Faculty members on the committee inevitably will have greater experience with the code than any student and therefore will be able to dispense important advice.

A major complaint with adding faculty to the Honor Committee is that these older individuals would dominate the hearing and be too harsh. The setup of the proposed amendment prevents such problems. By adding only two faculty members, the ratio of students to faculty would prevent the faculty from taking control. Also, since eight out of nine votes would be required for a conviction, the faculty members would be unable to convict without student support. They could only provide leniency and more perspective.

The third proposed amendment would require all conversations involving the accused to be tape recorded. Though recording has been initiated this year by the Honor Committee voluntarily, the Committee refuses to codify this process in the Constitution. Because Committee decision only can be appealed for procedural unfairness or harmful bias, it is essential that as much as possible be formalized in the Constitution.

The fourth proposed amendment would let the accused bring a witness to the first interrogation. Some students are not good at defending themselves and may make mistakes at a nerve-wracking first session. The presence of a student adviser would greatly diminish the likelihood that accused would unintentionally foul up.