Honor Council flaws highlight need for further modifcation

By Paul Anzel     9/24/09 7:00pm

I was extremely pleased when I read about the recommendations of the Working Group on the Honor Council in The Rice Thresher two weeks ago ("Honor Council working group presents findings," Sept. 11). The council has had trouble keeping up with its caseload for a while, and the measures suggested could greatly alleviate the pressures on the council, allowing things to run much more smoothly.These changes, however, do not address some other major procedural problems with the Honor Council.

Before I begin, let me state that I agree that the Honor Code is an integral part of Rice - treating us as adults as we go about our studies - and I would like to thank everyone on the council for their time and service. Trying to ascertain whether or not a violation has occurred and deciding on the appropriate response is difficult and time consuming, especially when judging one's peers.

But with this in mind, some of the council's current policies run counter to the honor system's "rich tradition of trust and mutual respect," as described in the blue book. The council must adopt further changes if they wish to more fairly serve the student body.

---

---

The first change would be to address the method by which the council informs students that they have been accused of a code violation. For those who have not gone through the process, let me describe to you what takes place: You will receive a terse e-mail to the effect of, "You have been implicated in a possible Honor Code violation in [class name]. The date for your investigative hearing is [date]. Here is the contact information for your ombudsman. Be there." You're then left to wait for the investigative meeting to learn anything more.

Crucially missing from the e-mail is the actual charge levied against you - you must wait until the meeting to find out.

This is both unfair and withholds due process from students. We should not require anyone to deduce their crime, real or not. Does honor require surprise in order to be enforced? If it did, it wouldn't strike me as "honor" any longer.

This flaw is made exponentially worse by the delay of several days, weeks or sometimes months between when you are informed about the accusation and the date of the investigative hearing. I can tell you from personal experience that waiting for the hearing and not knowing your charge is nothing short of hellish. Others I have spoken to who have gone through the same process have described the process as "agony," "torture" and "cruel and unusual punishment" - all for the period of time before the council even decides whether there is sufficient evidence for a full investigation, let alone whether or not someone is guilty. While the Working Group's recommendations should quicken the ordeal, we must do what we can to make sure the experience is no more unpleasant than it needs to be.

Moreover, under the current system, the innocent are harmed more than are the guilty. There is a whole range of potential code violations one could face in a given class - plagiarism, collaborating or flat-out cheating - and while guilty students will know the exact case held against them and be able to prepare from there, innocent students will be left to divine what possible types of violations they could be facing, making it all the more difficult for them to properly defend themselves.

The second major problem with the council is that while their posted case abstracts list which members were present at a specific hearing, they do not record how each member individually votes in each straw poll - whether or not they find someone in violation, and their votes for the appropriate penalty. As such, each member as a whole has no real record to speak of, which makes the election of members to the council a rather silly exercise. How can I re-elect someone to the council in clear conscience if I have no understanding of their record? Are they fair? Overly harsh? There's no real way to know.

The American judicial system publishes the individual opinions of its judges in its case abstracts, and while the council needs not remake itself in the mirror image of the American system, it would be good to consider following this example. Such records of a judge's opinions are crucial for any of that judge's future appoints. Meanwhile, with no record of each member's votes, the only information left to impartially evaluate each Honor Council candidate is a short Student Association election blurb and a few other short statements they may make at other functions - all of which tend to express similar sentiments and have no concrete bearing on any actual practice.

The final issue the Honor Council must deal with is something it has been trying to kill off for the past few years. This issue is Article XII, which many on the council have taken to calling this the "loophole clause" because it allows a student to essentially plead nolo contendere to a charge and accept the second-worst punishment the council can mete out - a year of suspension from Rice - in exchange for not having a violation listed on their external transcript.

Article XII serves many important purposes. It provides a check on the power of the council; should it grow too dictatorial with its decisions, students will be able to better protect themselves from any abuse of power. For the guilty students, it is tantamount to immediately making a good-faith acceptance to one of the worst punishments the council can give, taking the social and academic disruption that comes from leaving for a year. And, as proof of current enrollment is necessary for many internships, study programs and the like, it's a willing resignation to take up a more menial pursuit in the meantime. For the innocent, it's the offer of a gamble - you're unlikely to be hit, but note of a (wrongfully found) violation can completely kill numerous potential careers.

I would like to close by saying that if you agree with the sentiments here or have other issues you'd like to discuss, you should contact the council yourself. You can e-mail them at honor@rice.edu or attend their public meetings throughout the semester: The council will meet to discuss the Consensus Penalty Structure sometime in October and Honor Council college representatives will host study breaks in their respective colleges throughout the year. Both occasions will give you the chance to discuss any concerns about procedures with the council.

That way, you'll be more informed about how the council actually runs - or at least more informed than when it summons you to a hearing.

Paul Anzel graduated from Will Rice College in 2009.

---