Vote ‘yes’ on Referendum No. 1 to strengthen student disciplinary protections

The following is a guest contribution and reflects the authors’ views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.

In May 1913, The Daily Princetonian reported that 56 of 312 graduating seniors had been summoned to the Faculty Committee on Discipline during their time at Princeton. More than a century later, students still come before the Committee for a variety of alleged academic and behavioral infractions. However, the current Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline (COD), charged with enforcing these norms, does not have the procedural safeguards to protect student rights. 

As members of the Peer Representatives, we serve as advocates for students in disciplinary hearings. We have introduced Referendum No. 1 to push for the codification of student rights when accused of misconduct before the COD. We urge all undergraduate students to vote in its favor. 

Unlike the exclusively student-led Honor Committee, both students and faculty vote on the COD. It adjudicates serious non-Title IX behavioral concerns and all academic integrity concerns that occur outside of in-person exams. The committee’s most recent disciplinary report indicates that 23 students were issued a suspension (not served) or a one-semester suspension for academic infractions during the 2024–25 school year. Because this high-stakes process remains more opaque than its student-run counterpart, Referendum No. 1 is a necessary step toward codifying stronger protections for students.

The most important reform of Referendum No. 1 asks to raise the threshold for a finding of “responsibility” in disciplinary hearings from a simple majority to a three-fourths supermajority. Currently, the minimum quorum for a COD hearing is three student members and two faculty members, all of whom have the same voting power. Under the current simple majority system, two out of five panelists can believe that a student is not responsible for a disciplinary infraction, yet that student will still be found responsible. Our proposal raises the threshold to a three-fourths supermajority rounded up to the next whole number. For the typical hearing involving five panelists, findings of responsibility would require a 4–1 vote.

This reform has several benefits. First, it better aligns with the COD’s internal guidelines. The committee makes decisions using a “clear and persuasive” evidentiary standard. Definitionally, evidence is neither clear nor convincing if 40 percent of COD members involved in a hearing believe that no violation has occurred. This is why the Honor Committee, which uses the stronger “overwhelmingly convinced” standard, requires a 6–1 or 7–0 vote for conviction. For the sake of treating students accused of academic dishonesty equally, Princeton must change the COD voting threshold that intrinsically undercuts its standard of proof.

Second, a supermajority minimizes the risk of false convictions. We believe that the COD conducts its work thoroughly. From our experience, many behavioral cases are straightforward. However, the academic landscape is changing. In particular, ChatGPT and other generative AI models have increased in sophistication to the point where it is often difficult to tell the difference between student and LLM writing. AI detection generators are notoriously flawed. To fend off accusations of misconduct, nationwide, students have been recording themselves working and “dumbing down” their language in order to avoid false accusations of AI use. Given the difficulties of both proving and disproving AI use, many suspected AI cases just wouldn’t rise to the level of clear and persuasive evidence. Requiring a 4–1 vote for conviction helps to ensure that students are not mistakenly convicted of improper behavior. We must prioritize academic integrity without perpetuating a culture of fear.

The COD has internally justified its simple majority voting procedure by arguing that the presence of faculty members on the committee offers a sufficient procedural safeguard. This logic is faulty. There is no reason that faculty members are better arbiters of academic integrity cases than students, especially when all COD panelists make their decisions during a hearing from the same body of evidence. If anything, fellow undergraduate students, who actively take classes in all disciplines and navigate the same academic expectations, are probably better positioned to evaluate the contexts in which alleged violations occur.

The other two components of this referendum also increase due process protections for students under investigation. Currently, when students are first contacted by the COD, they are vaguely asked to discuss an academic matter. It is unclear for students whether or not they are even under investigation, or the course to which the matter pertains. The referendum calls on COD investigators to clarify the academic course in question and the role of the student as a witness or subject of investigation. The process is already stressful for students who are involved. Any ambiguity only serves to make that process even more difficult.

The referendum would also call on the COD to adopt a policy proactively affirming the right to representation. Currently, the COD’s FAQs mention the right of students to have an advisor. But COD policy places the burden on students to learn about their own rights, including the right to representation. During the investigation process, an advisor can inform students about their rights, give them advice about their case, and serve as a resource during an unfamiliar process. With the numerous mental health concerns that can come with disciplinary investigations, these protections for students will provide clarity and reassurance in an uncertain situation.

We write amidst a unique academic climate on campus. As reported by the ‘Prince,’ faculty are currently considering introducing proctoring to all in-person exams. We agree with former Honor Committee chair Nadia Makuc ’26 that academic integrity is critical to the University’s function. We believe that the changes outlined by this referendum will strengthen this integrity. Similar to the criminal justice system, students may be more likely to respect and internalize academic norms when they feel that the enforcement process is fair. Likewise, students should feel more comfortable reporting concerns and be more candid when speaking to investigators if they truly believe that the COD’s objective is the pursuit of truth, not maximizing prosecution.

With AI use on the rise amidst monumental shifts in academic culture, it is imperative that Princeton’s disciplinary system modernizes accordingly. By raising the simple majority threshold to a three-fourths supermajority, requiring COD investigators to clarify the academic course in question and the role of student as a witness or subject of investigation, and proactively affirming the right to representation, we aim to protect student rights and affirm the legitimacy and importance of the COD. Vote “Yes” on Referendum No. 1.

William Aepli is a senior from Wilson, Wyo. He is chair emeritus of the Peer Representatives and was consulted for Referendum No. 1. He can be reached at willaepli[at]princeton.edu.

Aum Dhruv is a junior from Fort Myers, Fla. He is an active member of the Peer Representatives and the author of Referendum No. 1. He can be reached at aum[at]princeton.edu.

Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.