It is a little unclear from the article on the honor referendum (“Honor Committee validates proposal for spring elections, “2/9/2009), however, it seems from the article that the main debate the Honor Committee has is that the language is unclear. If this is the case how could you possibly allow a constituency to vote on it? If this is a referendum that could take away the single sanction, a long lasting tradition at the University, shouldn’t it contain language that people consistently understand to have one meaning? Would we allow our state legislature to enact laws that aren’t consistently comprehensible to all voters? There are significant legal principles which specifically protect voters from voting on things where the language is uncertain. To simply let people “figure it out” is ridiculous, particularly when dealing with something which deals with potential expulsion of individuals from an institution of higher education.
Read More
A statement from 181 concerned faculty on the Faculty Senate’s Nov. 14 resolution
By Concerned Faculty | YesterdayContinuing the search now would be all the proof needed to conclude that the Board and Mahoney are acting not in the University’s best interests but pursuant to some other agenda, if further proof were needed.
P.U.M.P.K.I.N. SOCIETY: Happy Halloween 2025
By P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society | October 31, 2025We Would Like To Recognize The Volunteers, Pavilion Residents And Residents Of The Lawn And Range For Their Efforts To Ensure A Safe And Fun Trick-Or-Treating On The Lawn Event This Year
LETTER: The Jefferson Council understates faculty criticism of the presidential search
By Jeri Seidman | October 23, 2025That is factually inaccurate. In fact, faculty did protest.
