Honor Committee members debated a proposal last night that would create a separate three-person panel of Honor Committee members to vote on the seriousness of an honor offense after a jury convicts a student of act and intent.
This amendment to the Honor Constitution was proposed last semester by a support officer, said Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs.
Isolating deliberations of seriousness is intended to avoid "disparate interpretations" which "may cause the Seriousness Clause to be applied inconsistently, depending upon the interpretation of a particular jury panel," the proposal reads.
The proposal drew mixed reactions from committee members. While many committee members praised the goal of standardizing seriousness clause deliberations, others criticized the implications of the measure.
"It depends on who you are trying to help," said Commerce School representative Matt Miller. "Jury members would like that committee members would decide. If they know that [the responsibility for expelling a student] is not on them they feel a little bit better. A student being accused, I don't know if they would like the committee deciding."
Although the specific makeup of the panel was not discussed, Vice Chair for Trials Stewart Ackerly called into question the ability of themembers to remain impartial in light of their extensive involvement.
"In pre-trial you are often exposed to information juries aren't allowed to see," Ackerly said. "Fairness is an issue for the accused student."
Reducing the number of students rendering a decision on seriousness was also an issue for some committee members.
Others felt that taking the jury out of the final decision making process would infringe upon student self-governance.
Vice Chair for Investigations Lauren Ross commented that the process of having students decide who is and is not asked to leave the "community of trust" is how the committee justifies the single sanction to students at orientation.
"I have trouble taking that away from the student body if this is supposed to address consistency," Ross said. "I would feel almost as if a right was being taking away from me to have a voice in seriousness."
According to Ackerly, the issue concerns the number of students ultimately deciding who is expelled -- the proposal calls for three members of the Honor Committee to decide seriousness whereas the Honor constitution currently requires between eight and 12 panel members in a panel of student jurors.
"I don't necessarily have a problem with Committee members deciding," Ackerly said. "We are elected by our constituents but if a juror doesn't think it's serious then the juror is going to vote against act and intent."
Hobbs said time is a factor with this proposal as the referenda season approaches.
To be placed on the ballot, two-thirds of Committee members would have to vote for the proposal, according to the Honor Constitution. Such a move would have to come by mid-February, Hobbs reminded the committee.
"Our time is kind of winding down to get things on the ballot," Hobbs said.
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 3 days agoThis is the first community alert of June.
Full Board discusses financial aid challenges, medical research and entrepreneurship
By Thomas Baxter | 5 days agoBoard members discussed the Pan-University Entrepreneurship Initiative, a project that aims to help develop more entrepreneurial ventures at the University.
Finance Committee approves 2024-25 operating budget and Major Capital Plan
By Zackary Holt | 5 days agoThe proposed 2024-25 fiscal year budget for the Academic Division includes a 6.8 percent increase in spending over the previous year.
