New penalty structure set
As if there were not already enough of a disincentive to cheat, the Honor Council has recently made several changes to its consensus penalty structure for the 2009- 10 academic year to strengthen and streamline its focus. Each fall, the Honor Council meets to adopt a standardized penalty structure, which dictates both the type and severity of penalties the council may allow for Honor Code violations. The starting penalty for deliberation under last year's penalty structure was a grade of F in the course and a two-semester suspension. The maximum penalty currently allowed is an F in the course and a three-semester suspension, but under unprompted self-accusations made in good faith, the maximum penalty allowed is an F in the course.
In a series of three meetings beginning in mid-October - one open to students and two for council members only - the Honor Council voted on changes to the penalty structure in hopes of creating more transparency for students, Honor Council Chair Lindsay Kirton said.
The council supported streamlining the "mitigating" and "aggravating" categories into a single, condensed list. In this way, considerations previously used for reducing a penalty could be used to increase it, and vice versa. The council also altered the wording of the deliberations system, most notably to define "cooperation" in two separate elements of "full and truthful disclosure" and "bringing in relevant information before the hearing," Kirton, a Wiess College junior, said.
In addition to updating the language of the deliberations system, the council also voted to add a list of all possible penalties to the penalty structure.
The council also voted to clarify wording in the blue book to increase transparency to students, Kirton said. Under Article 1c, the council clarified the definition of an investigation as the process of determining if the degree of evidence warrants a hearing. Kirton said the change in language was proposed to assuage students' fears that an investigation automatically meant evidence for a trial had been found. Discussion also centered on whether to change the definition of a heinous violation, but the council decided against any alterations.
The Honor Council has a history of modifying its penalty structure to match changing needs. In previous years, the council could assign a maximum penalty of an F in the course and a two-semester suspension, but an extra semester's suspension was added during the 2007-08 academic year for a total of a three-semester suspension, Secretary Kaleb Underwood said.
The additional semester allows the council more flexibility in their decisions by increasing the range of penalties they can assign.
"It didn't make sense to have a starting point and a ceiling that are the same," Internal Vice Chair Jackie Ammons said.
At the public meeting last month, which was open to students for input, Honor Council members discussed the possibility of changing the starting penalty, which was an F in the course and a two-semester suspension. The council also considered further defining student cooperation as a mitigating circumstance. Accused students who cooperate through full and truthful disclosure of information during their investigation may have their penalties reduced, but there are no current guidelines explicitly defining what constitutes cooperation.
While the Honor Council has attempted to define such criteria in the past, members have decided against it in favor of a more open environment for decision-making.
"In terms of setting a definition, we looked at having a list of bulleted points in the past," Kirton said. "We decided against it, because we like to leave things open for our council members."
In addition, for several years the Honor Council has attempted to remove Article XII of the blue book, a provision allowing students confronted with an accusation the opportunity to withdraw from the university for at least two semesters within three days of the accusation and forfeit credit in the course. Upon returning to the university, accusations against the students would be dropped, giving them nothing more than a flag on their internal records - a detail leading some on the council to oppose the loophole in past years.
In March's general elections, 61 percent of participating students voted to remove the article, short of the required 75 percent needed for removal.
Unlike in previous years, the Honor Council will not pursue changes to Article XII this year, Kirton said.
While the majority of Rice students will never face the Honor Council, the number who do is more than just a handful. During the last academic year, the Honor Council held 23 hearings. A total of 15 students were found "not in violation," while 14 students were found "in violation." Five accusations did not go to hearing due to a lack of evidence, while another five students accused withdrew under Article XII.
More from The Rice Thresher
Founder’s Court goes alt-rock as bôa kicks off U.S. tour at Rice
Founder’s Court morphed into a festival ground Friday night as British alt-rock band bôa launched the U.S. leg of their “Whiplash” tour. The group headlined the third annual Moody X-Fest before what organizers estimate was “a little bit over 2,000 students” — the largest turnout in the event’s three-year history.
Rice launches alternative funding program amid federal research cuts
Rice is launching the Bridge Funding Program for faculty whose federal funding for research projects has been reduced or removed. The program was announced via the Provost’s newsletter April 24.
This moment may be unprecedented — Rice falling short is not
In many ways, the current landscape of American higher education is unprecedented. Sweeping cuts to federal research funding, overt government efforts to control academic departments and censor campus protests and arbitrary arrests and visa revocations have rightly been criticized as ushering in the latest iteration of fascism.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.