Academic integrity is a bedrock value of Princeton University — and something that should be held to a very high standard. We are an institution that values learning foremost, and guiding pedagogical principles are endowed in everything that we do. We, current and former members of the Honor Committee and the Chair of the Peer Representatives, do not believe that our current disciplinary system upholds the values of this University as best as it could. The University can better fulfill its institutional objectives and make Princeton a better place through a more compassionate system of discipline.
Princeton’s system of discipline should always be representative of community values. While our current system is not broken, several areas need substantial rethinking. We are proposing reform and redefinition in six main areas: mental health, precedent, intent, self-incrimination, severity and type of punishments.
Mental health: It is very difficult to evaluate a case when a matter of mental health has been raised. Currently, there is no policy as to how mental health should be factored into deciding cases. The extent to which a severe stressor or mental health disorder should be considered as a mitigating factor is unclear. However, it is clear that not accounting for mental health issues is systematically unfair to students facing the disciplinary committees, as this leads to the committee neglecting to consider factors that could reduce culpability. Our community needs to devise a way to fairly take into consideration mental health issues that influence academic and non-academic infractions.
Precedent: When a committee is deliberating on a certain case, it is able to review precedent, or information from relevant past cases. Reference to and application of precedent has been inconsistent during the years we have served on the Honor Committee, especially in regard to mental health issues. This likely stems from the fact that there is no formal way for the Honor Committee to review its previous decisions. While the Committee on Discipline does have a standardized way of reviewing precedent, its review process is problematic. Students and faculty on the Committee on Discipline are not able to view precedent outside of the cases they personally adjudicated. They are only provided with precedent on certain cases, and that precedent is provided by the administration. We think all involved in the process would benefit if summaries of past cases were more accessible.
Intent: The system of discipline needs to re-evaluate the role intent plays in deciding punishment. In our training as members of the Committee on Discipline and Honor Committee, we are told that “intent can never be factored into our decisions.” Not only is that not true in virtually all judicial and quasi-judicial systems, there have been indications that committees in the past fairly incorporated intent into their judgments. After all, the wording of the Honor Constitution is clear: violations of the Honor Code are an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
Self-incrimination: The Honor Committee has recently inaugurated a system in which an investigator immediately tells the student in question that they are under investigation. We believe that this is an important change that helps protect a student’s right to not self-incriminate. Since the Committee on Discipline has not adopted this practice, they are not bound to inform the student whether they are a witness to or the subject of an investigation while interviewing them. The right to be informed of one’s status in an investigation is a hallmark of virtually every other judicial system in the world, and Princeton’s system of discipline should incorporate this.
Severity of punishments: The severity and gradation of punishments needs to be reconsidered. Under the current system, the Honor Committee assesses a standard punishment when a student is found guilty of an academic violation without extenuating circumstances, no matter how minor and without consideration of intent. The standard punishments are harsh — two-semester suspension for a first violation and expulsion for a second. While the Committee on Discipline has more flexibility in levying less severe punishments, we believe the standard punishments are too frequently levied for minor offenses in both committees. The successful introduction of a lesser baseline punishment for writing overtime during an examination in 2014 proves that finer gradations of punishments have merit. We should continue to consider other finer gradations of punishment, including one-semester suspensions and course failure. Although one-semester punishments are currently not an option due to the current University curriculum, we believe its possibility should be reconsidered.
Type of punishments: If punishments in the University’s disciplinary system are intended to be punitive and rehabilitative, there needs to be a shift of emphasis towards the latter. We need to consider how we can reframe our punishments to be more compassionate, and we should aim towards rehabilitating offending students, drawing from aspects of restorative justice. For example, mandatory attendance of a crash course on academic integrity could be part of a lesser punishment for students who unknowingly violated a rule. In addition, while the University provides support to students that are required to withdraw from the University, that support needs to be bolstered to better ensure success when they return.
It’s time for the University to reform its system of discipline and incorporate a more compassionate system focused on the rehabilitative nature of punishment. The current application of our rules too frequently results in harsh punishments for minor infractions. We believe there are systematic ways of adding nuance to our system that will make our discipline system more just.
Signed,
Justin Ziegler '16, Senior Class President & Honor Committee Member
Nicholas Horvath '17, Former Clerk of the Honor Committee
Ali Akram Hayat '16, Chair of the Peer Representatives
Joseph Obiajulu '17, Former Member of the Honor Committee
Editor’s Note: The Honor Committee is an all-student body that deals only with infractions pertaining to in-class examinations. The Committee on Discipline is a body comprised of students and faculty that oversees all other infractions, including non-academic violations, as outlined in "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities."
Read More
Campus is isolated: Be the voice that speaks out
Wynne Conger“Although today’s encampment represents a significant and monumental stride in campus activism, the culture of the Orange Bubble must fundamentally shift in order to ensure long term change.”
Protesting for peace and justice
Nura Liepsner“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
Encampments are not ‘inherently unsafe.’ Princeton should not arrest or expel students for them.
Daily Princetonian Editorial Board“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
