I applaud Robert Baldwin’s critique of the Jason Smith honor trial that appeared yesterday (“In defense of Jason Smith,” 4/6/2009). Specifically his point about non-triviality lacking precedent sheds light on the recently failed referendum to make the honor system a multi-tiered system and how Smith could have benefited from such a system. Similar to the way in which the Honor Committee instituted a slanderous, dishonest campaign to ensure the failure of the referendum this spring, now the Committee has committed another unjust act against our community in the form of the precedence Smith’s case represents: the potential for a primary witness in an honor trial to also be an officer in the committee itself. We must ask ourselves as members of the community of trust just how many injustices we can tolerate from the Committee. If we are unable to change honor through the democratic process due to the Committee’s demonstrated skill at deceiving our community then we must ask if it is necessary to change the terms of its authority through other means.
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.
