In its first meeting of the semester, the Honor Committee discussed a proposed constitutional amendment that would increase transparency between the Committee and the University community.
The amendment, proposed by Graduate Rep. Alexander Cohen, argues that students have "a right to know" certain information about decisions made by the Committee.
Cohen said he drafted the amendment to promote "discussion on what's going on in cases."
To accomplish this, Cohen proposed that certain information be disclosed to students after hearings and reports. This information would include documents considered during the Investigative-Panel hearing, which determines whether the case will go to trial or be dropped. Other possible information that falls within a student's "right to know" includes the names and titles of the individuals who vote on the decision made at the I-Panel hearing.
Committee Chair David Truetzel said while the amendment could create openness, there are concerns about "protecting people's identities" involved in cases, "legal liabilities" and other possible negative effects.
Cohen said he plans on writing two new proposals for next week, one of which will detail what information would be disclosed to students involved within a case and another outlining information that would be disclosed to the public.
In addition to Cohen's "right to know" amendment, Truetzel proposed an amendment to change the language in Article VII in the Committee's constitution, which affects amendments themselves and when they must be submitted to the University Board of Elections to be put on a ballot as referenda. Under the current language of Article VII, the referendum election must be held "two to six weeks ... after receipt of the proposal," which Trutzel called "incredibly confusing." His amendment would remove that language from the Committee's constitution and would instead hand the responsibility of establishing deadlines to UBE.
Truetzel said he has been working with members of the University Judiciary Committee and Student Council on similar amendments to ensure the amendments and decisions are "uniform across the board."
Lastly, Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll presented an amendment that would set a default jury composition and trial choice to settle instances in which students tried in the same trial cannot reach an agreement on their desired jury composition and trial choices.
According to the proposal, in those cases, their jury panel "shall consist of both elected school officers and student jurors," and their trial shall be private instead of open.
"I like the default ideas," said Truetzel, so that the committee can ensure they are "consistent" every time in handling these disagreements.
Currently, all three proposals are being considered as constitutional amendments, and require a two-thirds vote by the Committee to be placed on the UBE ballot. Each proposal will be discussed further and possibly voted upon during the Committee's next meeting, Truetzel said.
Read More
Student Council passes appointment bill, approves new CIOs at final meeting of semester
By Arshiya Pant | 12 hours agoMendoza Gonzalez also said she will be meeting with Kenyon R. Bonner, vice president and chief student affairs officer, to discuss further strategies for the Student Council Endowment Fund.
Professors speak about leading productive dialogue on Israel-Hamas war
By Lexie Stadler | YesterdayThe event was hosted by the University’s Task Force on Religious Diversity and Belonging, which is designed to ensure that the University is welcoming to community members from all religions and cultures.
Honor Committee considers formal ban of AI detectors as evidence in trials
By Lexie Stadler | 2 days agoThe Committee also addressed balancing student perspectives with those of Committee representatives during panel discussions.
