Fundamental flaws

It is shameful that, after forcing a proposal onto the ballot in violation of the honor constitution, Hoos Against Single Sanction is now trying to undermine debate on their proposal by portraying legitimate criticism as deception (“Sanction reform is the answer,” 2/10/09).

Leven’s claim that his proposal permits appeals of lesser sanctions is simply false. The honor constitution only permits appeals of panel (jury) findings, but HASS’s proposal gives sanctioning power to a separate group of Committee members after the panel has already found the accused student not guilty on triviality. Only this verdict can be appealed, but not the sanction, because the non-expulsion sanction is not given by the panel. If HASS wants to preserve the right to appeal, as Leven claims it does, it should have included that in the proposal. It did not, and hence this proposal is flawed.

Second, Leven argues that his proposal will encourage reports. He is arguing a contradictory premise. People don’t report because our sanction is too strict (his Oct. 8 2008 column), so we need a system in which some of those currently found not guilty because their offenses are trivial are punished nonetheless. Somehow, we will increase reporting by making the system more strict.

There is plenty not to like about the single sanction. But none of those reasons ought to be sufficient to support an illegal proposal based on flawed and false arguments.