Though Honor Committee chair Peter Dunbar ’10 invited students and faculty to submit questions in advance to be addressed during the Honor Code town hall meeting, students were also free to ask questions of Dunbar and Alex Rosen ’11, Honor Committee clerk and Class of 2011 president, at the meeting.
The loudest concerns voiced by students during the meeting regarded the two-fold responsibility of the Honor Code, which requires students to report any violations they witness to the committee.
Tulio Alvarez Burgos ’12 said some students were unlikely to abide by this regulation to avoid submitting fellow students to what some at the meeting called a harsh one-year suspension policy.
Another student in attendance admitted that he would feel uncomfortable turning in a close friend who had violated the Honor Code. He questioned the adequacy of support offered to accused students, explaining, “It seems like lives are being ruined for unjustified reasons.”
But Dunbar and Rosen assured those in attendance that one student’s word is not enough to convict another student. An accused student, whose anonymity is strictly protected, is informed of what to expect during a hearing, they added.
Dunbar noted that the University’s policy of suspending convicted students for one year is stricter than policies at many peer institutions. But, he explained, a lesser punishment like probation is a possibility for cases with extenuating circumstances, such as an honest misunderstanding of the professor’s policy.
But Burgos said that he wasn’t necessarily against the one-year suspension penalty, explaining that he was concerned that “the trust wasn’t there to begin with.” At the meeting, students asked why the University does not allow students to take exams at their own convenience as do some other institutions with honor codes.
At the end of the meeting, students voiced frustration that they were not able to discuss issues further, but were invited to voice their concerns personally to Dunbar and Rosen.