Proposed Code change harms 'spirit' of deliberations

Recently, there have been several announcements of Honor Code reform. Two Sundays ago, the USG approved a set of procedural changes to the Honor Code Constitution. The Honor Code's language and purpose are not intended to be static concepts so distanced from the student body that they lose their meaning. Rather, the Code should be the voice of the people for whom it has been established and maintained. Recent proposals for altering the fabric of the Honor Code have been voiced, and we would like to consider each of them in the context of how they would affect the students involved, as our primary concern is for a fair and accurate fact-finding process.

The first proposal recommends that two faculty members serve as members of the Honor Committee. Such an amendment violates the trust that exists between Princeton students and faculty. We are fortunate to have un-proctored exams, and the trust in such a system has been codified under the twofold responsibility that all students agree to uphold. To have faculty participate in a process that was conceived by and is operated for students, needlessly destroys the student-based trust and honor of the system. Proponents of this amendment may argue that having adults in the room increases fairness. Although faculty may have additional years of experience, they do not interact with students as other students do. Incorporating faculty would hamper discussion by shifting the gravitational center of the Committee away from students onto faculty. The change would resultantly diminish the spirit of our deliberations that seek out every possible explanation (academic and personal) that could benefit the case of the accused student.

Another proposal requests that the Constitution state that all sessions in which the investigators speak to the accused student be tape-recorded. The Committee has already taken steps, including such recordings, to ensure fairness in the investigation. The current procedures are not listed in the Constitution because such a construction would bind us to a lockstep method of treating an individual's case, which could potentially harm a student. We see no reason to amend the Constitution for this or any other procedural detail that we already insist upon scrupulously.

A third amendment suggests that an accused student have the right to have a witness present at their first meeting with investigators. Because we place paramount value in the student's privacy and needs as they pertain to the case, we feel that having another person there would harm the confidentiality and privacy of student interests. Because we record all conversations with an accused student, there is no question of fairness.

The final amendment is a proposal that intent be considered relevant in determining a fair penalty for an Honor Code violation. Committee members are limited by our human ability to judge not intent, but action. In the course of an investigation or hearing, we examine every possible fact or detail that would determine whether the accused student ought reasonably have known the rules as they pertained to the particular examination and its procedures, set by the professor. Ignorance to these procedures cannot be construed as an adequate defense because it is the expectation that Princeton students, living within a dynamic community of Honor, should concern themselves with details as important as the conditions under which an exam will be administered. We recognize that there are, of course, many possible exceptions to this expectation. Thus, we consider to the best of our ability the pressures, thoughts, and emotions facing a student at the exact moment in which he has been accused of violating the Honor Code. However, given that we cannot judge intangible qualities like intent, we rely on a system that determines the plausibility of a method in the absence of demonstrated intent as the grounds for deciding whether that student ought reasonably have known if he was in potential violation of the Honor Code.

We are a fact-finding committee, not a jury. The best interests of all Princeton students are what we, as students, want to protect. Every time we enter a hearing, we go with a sense of the breadth of our responsibility to Princeton students and the pride of upholding a system that has flourished here for more than a century. Faced with the difficult task of judging questions of honor, we feel our current guidelines, as enumerated in the Constitution, not only preserve the interests of the student but ensure that every student who comes before the Committee will receive a fair hearing that investigates all sides before reaching a conclusion. Our desire to maintain the Constitution as it stands arises not from hegemonic allegiance to tradition but rather from reasoned and principled arguments founded on practical experience that gauges the proposed amendments as potentially detrimental to the character and nature of the Princeton Honor Code.