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
LETTER: The Jefferson Council understates faculty criticism of the presidential search
By Jeri Seidman | 3 hours agoThat is factually inaccurate. In fact, faculty did protest.
A statement by 211 concerned faculty on the presidential and provost search committees
By Concerned Faculty | October 4, 2025As members of the faculty, we remind the Board that, at the end of the day, an academic community is an exercise in shared governance for the good of the whole.
LETTER: Embrace medicinal herb gardens on Grounds
By Jane Mattimoe | October 2, 2025I do love the gardens around the Lawn, which feature small smatterings of herbs, but something more extensive and scientific would be of great benefit to Grounds.
