The Honor Committee voted 19-2 yesterday evening to dismiss informed retraction legislation which sought to revise the honor system’s conscientious retraction through a bylaw change.

Batten School Representative Michael Karlik proposed the legislation last month and was among the two Committee members in favor of passing the legislation.

“There needs to be a cultural shift among students … students are reluctant to engage in lengthy trials, but the new IR is an attempt to get at the reluctance by allowing students to approach their fellow peers who they think committed an honor offense without the long, lengthy process,” Karlik said.

The informed retraction would allow a student to avoid formal honor proceedings by allowing him to admit his mistake after it had been discovered by another party. The party affected by the honor violation would then be able to decide an appropriate punitive measure according to the particular violation.

Currently, the conscientious retraction allows students who have committed an honor offense to report themselves before another party confronts them about their transgression.

Committee members who opposed Karlik’s proposal said informed retraction undermines the community of trust at the University.

Karlik, citing the problem of under-reporting which faces the Committee, said the informed retraction would make students and faculty more willing to report honor offenses.

“Reporting has been a big obstacle,” Karlik said. “But the whole premise is about having the student do the right thing — not blindly following the student body system.”

Law School Representative Barlow Mann said Karlik’s proposed informed retraction would unnecessarily confuse the student body and jurors involved in trials.

“[T]his IR precipitates confusion and deception of the student body, in addition to confusing jurors as well during the trial,” Mann said.

Karlik said increasing student awareness through education about the informed retraction would eliminate any potential confusion caused by the legislation.

“Many students don’t report offenses for a variety of reasons, but the informed retraction builds an element of confrontation and ownership,” Karlik said.

Batten School Representative Anna Mohan introduced two changes to the Committee’s bylaws, which seek to eliminate ambiguity in trial proceedings.

Mohan said the jury currently spends time deliberating about whether an act has been committed. Mohan’s revision would stipulate to jurors that a student who has made a conscientious retraction has already admitted to having committed the act.

The second bylaw revision would eliminate the deadline for filing a request to enter into the psychological evaluation process. A student who believes a mental disorder contributed to his act has 10 days after having committed the act to make a claim of Contributory Mental Disorder.

Mohan said the revisions would codify practices the Committee already employs to expedite the trial process.

“Essentially, we’re making it so what’s already in practice is in our bylaws so we can ensure that we’re acting [within the bylaws],” Mohan said.

The changes will be debated further during next week’s meeting.