The Honor Code was changed in two votes last semester.
The first change, by the USG and Honor Committee, made members of the Office of Undergraduate Students responisble for acting as procedural advisers to accused students and granted the dean of the college the authority to hear appeals.
The second, by student referendum, let an accused student bring an advocate to the initial Honor Committee hearing.
The Honor Code, last amended in 2000, is one of two disciplinary systems at the University. The code governs only in-class examinations. Any transgressions committed on papers or take-home exams are examined by the University's Committee on Discipline.
The first changes were approved March 30 when only 3 of the 22 voting USG members opposed the amendments.
Amendments proposed by the Honor Committee must be approved by a three-fourths majority vote of the USG. Proposals without Honor Committee support can be approved through a student referendum.
Advising
Prior to the changes, one of the two students who had investigated the accused served as the procedural advisor, a person who helps the accused understand their rights during the proceedings.
A USG committee found that the replacement of the procedural adviser with an administrator would add continuity and experience to the system. The new administrative procedural advisor will handle multiple cases during the course of many years.
Kathleen Deignan, dean of undergraduate students, said the main complaints of convicted students pertained to the procedural advice they received.
"The problems have been in advice or mixed messages or frankly just inexperience that have happened with procedural advisors before the proceedings," Deignan said. "Continuity can be provided by members of the dean's office who would do this over and over and over again. In fact, what I think this is intended to do is to buttress the independence of the Honor Committee, not to erode it."
Through the second amendment, the dean of the college — rather than the University president, as in the past — will hear appeals of students convicted by the Honor Committee. In addition, the dean of undergraduate students will now impose the penalties decided upon by the Honor Committee.
Referendum
The amendment letting an accused student bring a representative to the initial hearing was drafted by class senator Jonathan Chavkin '05, who proposed four separate changes.
It was approved April 15 through the referendum.
Chavkin's suggestions lacked support from both the USG and Honor Committee, which led him to initiate the referendum. A 75 percent majority was needed to pass each proposed amendment.
Two of his other proposed amendments failed narrowly. One, requiring the penalty phase of the hearing to consider student intent, received 73.6 percent support, and the other, requiring all interviews to be tape-recorded, garnered 72.4 percent.
His proposal to add two faculty members to the committee received just 41.4 percent of the vote.
Roughly 2,000 students voted on the amendments.
Chavkin said at the time that he would resubmit the failed amendments in the fall if the Honor Committee does not address them earlier. Honor Committee Chair Catherine Farmer '03 said the committee would not take up the amendments.
She said the committee had urged students not to vote because members thought that if enough students abstained, the referenda would not pass. The USG announced a short time later, however, that abstentions would not be counted.
Two systems of honor
While the 210-year-old student-run Honor Committee has jurisdiction over written exams taken in class, the Committee on Discipline has jurisdiction over all other University violations.
"I think most people here seem to take [the Honor System] very seriously," Tim Laporte '05 said.
"I think it's a very good thing that we have the Honor Code. Whether or not it stops cheating I don't know, but I'd like to think that it does," said Laporte, who served on his high school's honor council.
Of about 20 honor system investigations each year, about 6 to 9 lead to hearings and 4 to 5 lead to convictions. On the other hand, 291 disciplinary actions were taken by the Committee on Discipline in 2001-02, 32 of which were academic in nature.
From these, two students were expelled and 13 were suspended or required to withdraw from the University for disciplinary violations.
Roughly seven students have been expelled in the past 25 years.
Both the Honor Code and the discipline committee are blind to ignorance and intent, meaning a conviction in either system does not take into consideration whether the accused meant to commit the violation.
I pledge
The Honor Committee comprises 12 students and is governed by a constitution.
The usual notions of cheating on in-class exams are violations of the honor system, including receiving assistance from written aids, other people or other papers and giving assistance.
Cheating on in-class exams through activities that occur outside of the examination room are also violations.
Penalties imposed by the committee range from a one-year suspension to expulsion, the committee may issue a probation for a first offense, according to the code's constitution.
Students under scrutiny by the Honor Committee have a delineated set of rights, including a review of all evidence, a right to call witnesses, a right to have a procedural adviser and a right to have a defense advocate.
All Honor Committee proceedings are kept confidential. Records of acquitted cases are destroyed.
The pledge, "I pledge my honor that I have not violated the honor code during this examination," must always be written in full and signed on exams.
Discipline
Though academic violations are outnumbered three-to-one by alcohol policy violations, their consequences in the student and faculty Committee on Discipline are much more serious.
The 15-person committee is chaired by Deignan, though Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Marianne Waterbury oversees disciplinary issues in the dean's office.
The committee comprises six administrators, four professors and five students.
A majority of the committee members decides the verdict and sentence, which ranges from warning to expulsion, with many intermediate levels of punishment.
Academic fraud usually results in a minimum of a one-year suspension, similar to the consequences of the honor code.
Plagiarism, the most common academic violation the year before last, led to disciplinary probation — in the cases of careless scholarship — and suspensions.
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.