Honor Code matters

Today's Opinion page presents detailed information both for and against the proposed Honor Code changes that appear on the online ballot as part of this weekend's class elections.

The Opinion Board feels that one of the proposed Honor Code changes, if it were passed, would be harmful to students. The other three might well be improvements. We urge you to take a few minutes to learn about each of these proposals and make your voice known. This vote is binding, and whoever participates will help decide the future of the Honor Code. All undergraduates are eligible, but if only a small subset of the campus bothers to cast ballots, a minority group could change the rules for everyone else.

We urge our readers, in the strongest possible terms, to vote against adding faculty to the Honor Committee. As we have said before, including faculty on the Committee would inherently change the dynamic of the process and the interaction among its members. Giving votes to professors would destroy the Code's foundation of student-to-student trust and pave the way to a harsher, less understanding discipline system. Indeed, many faculty members find the existing honor code too lenient; if they join the Committee, it seems likely that they will vote for more convictions and encourage other members to do the same. Although not 'superiors' in this setting, professors are also not 'peers' and would likely wield influence far out of proportion to their individual votes. Should the measure pass, the student centered trials we now know — in which the accused are given every opportunity to prove their innocence — would likely become a thing of the past.

The other three changes — considering student intent during sentencing to correct for honest mistakes, recording proceedings on tape and allowing accused students to bring witnesses with them to their first accusation — are of debatable merit. We hope you will take the time to learn about them, and to make up your own mind. — The Daily Princetonian Opinion Board