Honor Council seeks Article XII repeal

By Sofi Hebert     1/27/14 6:00pm

Honor Council Chair Adriana Bracho and Jones College Senator Clinton Willbanks introduced a referendum proposal for an amendment to Honor Council's Constitutional at the Jan. 27 Student Senate meeting.

The amendment calls for the repeal of Article XII Section 1 and Article XXI, which provide that within three days of the investigative meeting, students who face an Honor Code violation can opt to receive a "W" for the course and withdraw from Rice for two semesters instead of continuing with the hearing with the understanding that the accusation would then not be pursued upon the student's return. According to Bracho, however, revisions in how the policy works alters the consequences for students who take Article XII.

"There's been a recent change in the way that the Registrar handles this withdrawal process that is making it very detrimental to the student," Bracho, a McMurtry College senior, said. "This past year, the Registrar has decided to change the ['W'] to an 'XII' to reflect Article XII and [state] on the transcript that the student withdrew for academic reasons," Bracho said.

---

---

Bracho said the change, made to increase transparency, was a decision made jointly by Student Judicial Programs and the Office of the Registrar. 

"It was done in the interest of full disclosure to other institutions that students might be applying to," Honor Council Internal Vice-Chair Isabelle Lelogeais said. "Rice wants to be as open and honest with future graduate programs and job positions as possible."

Lelogeais, a Jones College junior, said that, unlike the ambiguous meaning of a "W," an "XII" is clearly stated on the transcript to be an academic violation.

"It's not just an 'XII,' and other institutions look it over," Lelogeais said. "There's a note attached to it that [explains] what it means. Oftentimes, these are small violations that look worse."

Bracho said that after the changes, students were often unaware of the full ramifications of their decision to forgo their hearing.

"What we are really concerned about is a lot of students taking Article XII thinking that they're able to get out of the violation," Barcho said. "The idea is that if you go through the Honor Council process, you wont have it on your external transcript that you were found in violation. We've been having problems because students who have taken Article XII are finding that the 'XII' is really hurting them in what they're doing."

According to Bracho, Article XII is no longer necessary with the current Honor Council.

"Article XII was created at a time when the Honor Council was very different," Bracho said. "It used to be that we started out penalties with an F in the course and two semesters in suspension. Our approach to violations is a lot more holistic [now]."

Lelogeais said that with the exception of severe violations to the Honor Code, the Honor Council has been less stringent with their punishments in recent years.

"The vast majority of the penalties that we issue are in the letter reduction range, [and don't indicate an Honor Code violation]," Lelogeais said. "We're not giving suspensions left and right. At the time when the council was more punitive, it made sense for students to [take Article XII and] withdraw for two semesters rather than to face what would potentially be a two-semester suspension and an F in the course."

Bacho said that because the decision to take Article XII has to be made within three days of the investigative meeting, the pressure of the time limit makes it difficult for students to work their way through the process.

"[The three days are] a very tough time for the student," Bracho said. "It's a really big deal for them, and they're really concerned. [Article XII] used to be a way for the students to be able to take that time off from the university and nothing would go wrong, but now it just looks like a very big blunder on their part on their transcript."

Bracho said the Honor Council is attempting to steer the student body in the direction of the process it believes will result in the best situation for the individual student. 

"We're trying to make it a protective measure because we've seen that a lot of students recently are very afraid of going through [the hearing], so they take the Article XII, and it's much worse," Bracho said. "There is not at all [an advantage] since the Registrar decided to put the 'XII.'"

Brown College sophomore Amy Ryu said she does not agree with the amendment despite the intentions of the Honor Council.

"If it's only hurting them, but the students still choose to make that choice because they think it's better for them, then they should be allowed to make that choice," Ryu said.

Jones College sophomore Jeffrey Piccirillo said he agreed with the repeal of Article XII but that perhaps there is an even better solution.

"I'm all for more leniency and so I agree with the amendment," Piccirillo said, "But why can't the Honor Council educate students and say, 'XII is better than what was in the past, but hold on, there are even better options now.' Tell students they have a better option than XII and then leave it up to them to make the final choice."

On Feb. 10, the Student Association will vote on whether to add this proposal to the general election ballot.

---