The University Board of Elections announced last night that five out of six proposed referenda were approved by the student body.
Although the one failed referendum, known as the consensus clause, did not gain the 60 percent of the vote needed for an Honor constitutional amendment to pass, it received a majority of votes cast, 55.2 percent. The consensus clause would have required 33 percent of the overall student body to vote to approve a change to the single sanction Honor sanction of expulsion. Currently, at least 10 percent of all students, voters and nonvoters alike, must vote in favor of such a change for an amendment to pass.
The Honor constitution states that a three-fifths majority of those who do vote must approve referenda to amend the constitution.
Josh Hess, chair of the group Students for the Preservation of Honor which supported the consensus clause, noted he is disappointed with the outcome of the referendum, adding, however, that he is "ecstatic" that the referendum received a majority of voter support.
Sam Leven, communications director of Hoos Against Single Sanction and an unsuccessful candidate for Honor Committee, said he was happy with the failure of the referendum.
"The consensus clause has been rejected two years in a row," Leven said. "I hope its proponents get the picture and stop trying to shut down student self-governance."
Hess noted that as this is the second year that a referendum on the topic has received a majority of voter support, Honor should review its policy.
"It seems like an obvious mandate," Hess said.
The referenda that passed included the triviality referendum, which changes the word "serious" to "not trivial" in the criteria of an honor offense.
Also passed was a change to the University Judiciary Committee constitution adding a clause that increases the severity of sanctions for hate crimes.
The triviality referendum passed with 70 percent of the vote while the UJC referendum had 75 percent voter approval.
Honor Chair David Hobbs said he was excited about the success of the triviality referendum.
"I think this wording change brings the wording more in line with Honor Committee bylaws," Hobbs said.
UJC Chair Tim Ormsby said he was not surprised that the UJC's resolution passed by such a large margin, noting that the racially-motivated incidents on Grounds this fall could have led to support for the referendum.
The other three referenda that passed were opinion referenda. These include a statement against the use of social security numbers for University identification; a statement supporting a living wage for all University employees and a statement in favor of a five-dollar fee to support the use of renewable energy at the University. Each of these three referenda passed with more than 75 percent of voter approval.
UBE Chair Sara Anderson noted that the relatively small number of referenda may have contributed to a voter turnout rate lower than last year's among the undergraduate population. Additionally, some elections were uncontested, which could have decreased voter participation, Anderson said.
Graduate student participation, however, increased slightly from past years.
Anderson noted that voting procedures for the referenda and student elections ran smoothly, to her knowledge, as no complaints about the online system have been reported.
Read More
Student Council passes appointment bill, approves new CIOs at final meeting of semester
By Arshiya Pant | 17 hours agoMendoza Gonzalez also said she will be meeting with Kenyon R. Bonner, vice president and chief student affairs officer, to discuss further strategies for the Student Council Endowment Fund.
Professors speak about leading productive dialogue on Israel-Hamas war
By Lexie Stadler | YesterdayThe event was hosted by the University’s Task Force on Religious Diversity and Belonging, which is designed to ensure that the University is welcoming to community members from all religions and cultures.
Honor Committee considers formal ban of AI detectors as evidence in trials
By Lexie Stadler | 2 days agoThe Committee also addressed balancing student perspectives with those of Committee representatives during panel discussions.
