Article XII of Honor Code promotes equality and justice
Last year, nine Rice students decided to exercise their rights under the honor system by utilizing the Honor Code's Article XII. With the Student Association General Election ballot this week, a majority of the Honor Council's members - although not all - wish to undermine Article XII's check on judicial power by amending it; they have done their best to paint this piece of our Honor Code as a caustic evil that harms the innocent and exonerates the guilty. On the contrary, Article XII allows you to determine, for yourself, if the honor system ruling by the Honor Code under which you are about to be judged is evenhanded and, if necessary, allows you to avoid improper judgment. It exists in the Honor Code to protect a student's right to plea "no contest" and to ensure his or her just treatment in the event of an unjust Honor Council. There is no reason to remove, alter or amend it. The amendment to Article XII must not pass!For those who do not know, Article XII allows a student confronted with an Honor Code violation to forfeit credit for the class in question and to withdraw from the university within three days for a period not less than two semesters with the knowledge that, following this self-imposed punishment, the Honor Council will no longer carry out action against him or her.
Many students wonder what spawned the creation of Article XII. After a review of available resources, I found no institutional record stating the circumstances of Article XII's creation. I can, however, propose two reasonable justifications for Article XII's birth. First, Article XII upholds a student's privilege to plea "no contest" to an Honor Council accusation. Secondly, Article XII protects Rice students from the Honor Council should it ever become dictatorial, arrogant or corrupt. Article XII should remain unchanged for both reasons.
Many on the council call the punishment prescribed under Article XII - nearly the harshest the Honor Council can deliver - unsatisfactory. I find these council members insensitive for thinking that spending two semesters away from Rice, forfeiting course credit and enduring the aftermath from both students and professors is lenient in any way.
However, I am not surprised, as these are the same people who morbidly believe following Article XII may lead to a consequence-free (or even a productive) resolution of an Honor Council accusation. They believe that withdrawn students may study abroad, get a job, or take an internship in an effort to develop professionally during their time away from Rice.
One major flaw exists in this argument: To pursue one of those productive opportunities, most employers and educational institutions require proof of current enrollment at one's home university. A withdrawn student cannot receive such confirmation; thus, such activities tend to be unavailable to students who withdraw under Article XII. Granted, the withdrawn student may find work in a service industry job like wait service or manual labor.
But these temporary employment opportunities are far from the glamorous options some on the council tout as potential time-fillers. It goes without saying that a withdrawal from a course, two semesters away from school and a notification of a pending Honor Council accusation on one's academic record will almost certainly preclude such students from receiving any truly advantageous gap-year opportunities.
Some supporters of the proposed changes to Article XII claim that, through constantly reevaluation, the Honor System has been removed of any major kinks. I heartily contest, however, that a few "kinks" of the honor system have yet to be addressed.
For one thing, the majority of Honor Council members have shown that they have no interest in listening to the concerns of the student body when the council's own members (not the general student body) reevaluate the honor system every year. Last fall, for example, over twenty Rice students attended one of the council's two open meetings to voice their concerns over the previous year's penalty structure (the rules and methods by which the council arises at penalty decisions). After subsequently closing the meeting to public, the council spit in the face of these students by quickly discounting each of their concerns and voting 17 "yea" to three "nay" (three abstaining) to keep the old penalty structure with no modification.
Another major kink arises from the Honor Council's inconsistency in judgments as elucidated through the council's public records. According to the council's own Fall 2008 records (case #2 abstract available from http://honor.rice.edu), the Honor Council found two students in violation for colluding on an exam worth 10 percent of each student's course grade. For one student, an "F" in the course was satisfactory. For the other, the council prescribes an "F" in the course and a one semester suspension for no other given reason than "they felt it was hard to get helpful answers from [the second student]." Let that sink in: The Honor Council gave this student a one semester suspension because he or she did not say enough that the council found useful. Perhaps the student was nervous and emitted an uncooperative vibe. Maybe the student had a cold. Whatever the reason, this inconsistency, among countless others, highlights the fact that we do not have a fair system; nobody deserves a harsher punishment because they are not as open or are too nervous to speak.
Obviously, there are major kinks in our honor system; amending Article XII would do nothing to address these issues and would allow an already out of control council free reign over the student body.
All in all, supporters of the proposed Article XII amendment ludicrously claim that its haphazard use undermines the consistency of the honor system and shows disrespect to every Rice student who has faithfully abided by the Honor Code. On the contrary, students who withdraw under Article XII have followed the Honor Code. Article XII protects your right to plead "no contest" to Honor Code accusations and protects you from an honor system that may become unwieldy due to factors beyond your control.
Article XII does not create the inconsistencies in the honor system; the human fallacies of Honor Council members do. The proposed changes to Article XII will bulldoze all students through a flawed system influenced by external biases and enforced by people unwilling to listen to the student body they serve. Do not give up your rights under the Honor Code. Please vote against the amendment to Article XII.
Richard Romeo is a Hanszen College senior and member of the Honor Council.
More from The Rice Thresher
Rice Students for Justice in Palestine declares ‘liberated zone’ on campus
As student protests erupt across the country, Rice Students for Justice in Palestine launched a “liberated zone” on Rice campus, announced a two-day series of events and started construction on an “apartheid wall.”
Jeremy Zucker is no longer a ‘sad-boy troubadour’
Jeremy Zucker’s arms, like most of his body, host a scrapbook of tattoos — a faded clementine peel, his childhood pets (Rusty and Susie), a Pinterest doodle of Sonic the Hedgehog with a bouquet of flowers. His middle finger is etched with a single tooth, hanging off a thin branch wrapping around the rest of his hand.
Jeremy Zucker headlines second-ever Moody X-Fest
Jeremy Zucker headlined Rice’s second annual Moody X-Fest in Founder’s Court on April 19. In advance of Zucker’s set, student groups like Basmati Beats, Rice Philharmonic and BASYK performed. The festival also offered complimentary merchandise and food from Dripped Birra, Cane’s and Oh my Gogi.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.