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: Misunderstanding the Honor Committee’s mental health procedures
By Seamus Oliver and Alexander Church | March 15, 2024We recognize that the Honor process can be stressful and that any student may benefit from support, regardless of an underlying health condition.
LETTER: Mischaracterizing a tangled war
By Michael Liebermann | February 2, 2024We should not address this war with blind idealism. We should address it, instead, with nuance and care.
P.U.M.P.K.I.N. SOCIETY: Happy Halloween 2023
By P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society | October 31, 2023The P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society Recognizes Individuals Who Enrich The University Community Through Their Silent And Selfless Service.
