Honor Committee candidates squared off last night in a debate sponsored by the University Board of Elections.
Candidates from the College of Arts & Sciences and the School of Engineering fielded questions on issues ranging from the consensus clause to the role of the trial chair in consistent outcomes.
The College candidates who attended the debate were third-year counsel A-J Aronstein, third-year counsel Brendan Connors, second-year advisor Ben Cooper, third-year senior educator Kendall Fox, third-year counsel Sam Leven, second-year advisor Brian O'Neill and third-year senior advisor Andrew Siegel.
Of the seven candidates, only O'Neill supported the consensus clause referendum, which would raise the voting turnout requirements for changes to the single sanction.
"It's not because I think the single sanction should be impossible to change," O'Neill said. "I don't think it should be possible for a small number of students to change the single sanction."
The College candidates also discussed the other Honor referendum on the spring ballot, which would change the wording of the seriousness clause. If the referendum passes, "serious" would be altered to read "not trivial" in the criteria for an honor offense, although the definition would remain the same.
Six of the candidates expressed support for the change in wording, stating that they did not believe this alteration would place the burden of proof on the student rather than the community.
"This doesn't change the definition, this will just clarify it," Siegel said.
The lone dissenter on the issue was Leven, who said he believed the change in wording would place the burden of proof on the student.
"Even though the definition is going to stay the same, I think its going to bias the jury against the student," Leven said.
The candidates were asked about verdict consistency, particularly concerning the role of the trial chair -- the committee member available to field questions from the jury during deliberations. Some of the candidates brought up the possible use of precedent in jury deliberations.
Leven supported the introduction of precedent to jury procedure as a way to improve consistency, while Cooper, O'Neill, Connors, Siegel and Aronstein spoke against the use of precedent.
"Every Honor case is so unique I think it would be virtually impossible to rely on precedent to guide discussion," Cooper said.
An additional candidate from the College, Karl Blunden, was also eligible to debate but did not attend.
In a separate debate, Engineering candidates second-year counsel Justin Starr, second-year advisor Vanessa Trahan and third-year Engineering Rep. Alison Tramba discussed school-specific issues such as faculty support for the Honor System in addition to broader issues.
The question of faculty support for the system was highlighted by the incident of homework copying last semester in an Engineering class.
All three candidates spoke about the need to reach out to faculty members, especially those in the Engineering school.
The Engineering candidates were also asked whether they believe there needs to be separate counsels for the investigation and trial of given cases.
"There's a huge need to split up trial and investigation counsel in some cases," Starr said.
The other two candidates opposed the split. Tramba cited the need for a single counsel pool while Trahan said having fewer people involved would make the process easier for students.
Another candidate from the Engineering School, Harrison Wheaton, was eligible for the debate but did not attend.
The candidates from the College will be vying for the three available seats on the Honor Committee while those from the Engineering School are running for two seats.
The voting period for spring elections begins Feb. 24 and runs until March 1.
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 4 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.
