The USG declined last night to release the results of the referendum on four proposed amendments to the Honor Code, citing its standing policy, as there was also confusion this weekend about the closing time of the online voting system, campaigning by Honor Committee members and the tallying of the vote.
As a matter of policy, USG president Pettus Randall '04 said the USG withheld the results of the vote on the Honor Code changes proposed by Jonathan Chavkin, class of '05 senator, until they could be verified by the registrar later today.
The USG also withheld the results of the U-Council and class government elections. Randall said the USG constitution dictated the need to verify the results and inform the candidates later today.
Confusion about the election began when Randall stated in his original email that voting would end at 11:59 on Saturday night. He later sent another email stating the actual end of voting as last night at 11:59.
In addition, some members of the Honor Committee sent mass emails encouraging students to educate themselves before voting on the proposed changes. Eli Goldsmith '04, Honor Committee clerk and junior class president, sent an email to the junior class about the proposed changes, and he asked students to ensure that they understood the suggested initiatives before voting.
"Before voting, I must remind you that these proposed amendments have NOT been approved by the Honor Committee, the faculty, the USG, the President's Office, the Office of the Dean of the Undergraduate Students, the University's legal council, nor any other body that deals with the Honor Code on a daily basis. Thus, given the lack of institutional support for such reforms, if you do not feel absolutely certain that you fully understand the implications of all four amendments, I urge you to (a) please email me and ask any questions you desire pertaining to the Honor Committee and its procedures; or (b) simply refrain from voting on this part of your online ballot," Goldsmith wrote in the email.
Chavkin said while he was not ethically opposed to Honor Committee members sending out mass emails, he found fault in Goldsmith's email.
"I do have a problem with what Eli did. He used his position of power to advance a political agenda and even encourage people not to participate in a democratic process," Chavkin said.
Goldsmith said that he did not see a conflict of interest between his role as class president and as a member of the Honor Committee.
"If I had flat out said 'Don't vote for this,' that could be argued but I really just mentioned facts," he said. "A lot of people didn't even know they were going to be voting on this referendum."
Catherine Farmer '03, the Honor Committee chair who opposes the amendments, said she too did not see a conflict of interest.
"The freshman through junior class presidents are elected to serve on the Honor Committee . . . In this capacity, it is their duty to answer questions for classmates about the Honor Code," Farmer said in an email to a Daily Princetonian reporter. "I do not think that it is a conflict of interest for them to send an email to their class encouraging them to contact them with any questions about an issue of such importance."
Until late yesterday there was uncertainty about how the votes would be tallied. During the weekend USG officers and Honor Committee members had conflicting understandings of how the votes would be counted. The confusion was about how abstentions from voting on the amendments would be counted.
Kyle Detwiler '05, USG treasurer, clarified last night the policy, saying that each amendment would be scored individually, and to pass, each needed at least one-sixth of the student body to vote yes. In addition, the number of votes in favor must be three-fourths of the total number of votes on the amendment.
Chavkin initially proposed the four changes to the Honor Code in January and began the process by collecting 200 signatures to bring the changes to a student referendum.
The four proposed changes were the addition of two faculty members to the all-student Honor Committee, the consideration of intent in the penalty process, the recording of all parts of the investigation, and the presence of a third, neutral party during the accused student's first interview.
Last month, the USG amended the Honor Code by approving the Honor Committee's proposed changes. As a result, an administrator, rather than a student, will now serve as the procedural advisor, and the University president's role in the appellate and penalty proceedings will be almost eliminated.
Read More
GSG approves audit, delays budget approval after ‘insufferable’ meeting
Nikki HanThe final Graduate Student Government (GSG) meeting for the semester lasted more than an hour and a half when discussions over the proposed budget for the next year and a proposed Student Life Fee of $100 turned controversial.
The final Graduate Student Government (GSG) meeting for the semester lasted more than an hour and a half when discussions over the proposed budget for the next year and a proposed Student Life Fee of $100 turned controversial.
Effort to restore chapel’s pews slowly progresses
Ben GoldstonHead carpenter Jim Sullivan has been restoring the Chapel pews over the last year. The dry atmosphere of the Chapel has warped the wooden pews over the years.
Head carpenter Jim Sullivan has been restoring the Chapel pews over the last year. The dry atmosphere of the Chapel has warped the wooden pews over the years.
Metals, molecules, and medicine: chemical biology’s influence on health and sustainability
Aanya KaseraChemistry professor Chris Chang’s lab studies the chemical biology of the elements, specifically examining the roles that copper, iron, and zinc play in biology across all kingdoms of life.
Chemistry professor Chris Chang’s lab studies the chemical biology of the elements, specifically examining the roles that copper, iron, and zinc play in biology across all kingdoms of life.