Honor Code Review to Culminate in Referendum

Author: Devin Zatorski News Editor

Following a lengthy drafting process, Community Council's finalized Handbook language on the Middlebury College Honor Code will face a student referendum this Thursday and Friday, with voting on whether to accept the amendments linked to the Middlebury Automated Registration System's (MARS) homepage for spring term course registration.

Secretary of the College Eric Davis, who has worked with Community Council to draft the new language, said the amended version differs from what currently appears in the Handbook in five major ways, including three "substantive changes" and two "editorial" alterations.

If three-quarters of the student body participates in the referendum, with a majority in favor of the changes, the new language will be forwarded to the faculty for final ratification, he said.

Among the proposed reforms, the most significant structural change merges the current Student Judicial Council (SJC) and Judicial Review Board (JRB) into a single Academic Judicial Board (AJB), which would hear all cases of alleged academic dishonesty.

Under the current system, the SJC, comprised solely of students, hears cases of cheating, while the faculty-dominated JRB deals with all other academic dishonesty cases, including allegations of plagiarism.

The change stems from a recommendation made last spring by the Honor Code Review Committee, which assesses the Code every three years. "Some members of the Middlebury community perceive a disparity both in the way cases are heard and how the boards impose sanctions," the report read.

Students would have a four to two majority on the newly created AJB, but would lose the all-student SJC, a body which Chair Lisa Jasinski '02 said "communicates a great deal of trust and confidence in the student body." She remains an advocate of the existing structure, saying, "I fundamentally think that the Honor Code is a pledge students make to their peers, and therefore if they choose to dishonor the pledge, they should have to answer to their peers."

The change to a single board with mixed student and faculty membership "under-emphasizes the very importance of that promise between students," she argues, suggesting that the referendum will "re-interpret the way we think about the Honor Code and [so] we should be prepared to vote in that context."

Assistant Professor of Psychology Augustus Jordan, who focuses his research on issues of academic integrity, advised seeing the students and faculty on the new AJB as representing "a joint constituency with shared community goals," rather than "different constituencies with different goals."

Despite Jasinski's "misgivings" about the certain aspects of the proposed changes, she said she recognized the benefits of a single judicial body, including more consistency in both the way academic dishonesty cases are heard and sanctions are imposed. She continued, "I think [the reform] would make the system more accessible and more easily understood by students."

According to Davis, since plagiarism cases are two to three times more frequent than cheating on exams, currently the majority of cases are being heard by the JRB, a committee on which the faculty enjoys a three to two majority. Under the new language, he said, "A majority student committee would hear all of the cases, a change which reflects the fact that the Honor Code is something students should have a large say in crafting and administering."

The broader significance of the structural change, he asserted, comes in creating a judicial system "with less confusion around it."

In addition to reworking the judicial boards, the new language deleted "moral" from students' obligation to report infringements of the Honor Code. "No questions, qualifications or modifiers," said Davis, citing that this change reinforces that the obligation is mandatory, not dependent on a student's individual sense of morality.

Jasinski, who also supports the removal of morally from the language, explained, "All that keeping the word 'morally' does is present a hypothetical situation whereby a student could not report an offense and justify it through a 'moral code' that does not include reporting violations or ratting out a friend."

Professor Jordan takes a more general approach to the issue, commenting, "the larger question is whether students and faculty see academic integrity as essential to the functioning of our community." He emphasized that the "community depends on that high standard for all members," even if it means transgressing the bonds of friendship to confront and even report a fellow student for "failing the Honor Code."

"What's most important is that students and faculty start to actively talk about what obligations they have to each other," he remarked.

The final substantive change clarifies which types of changes to the Honor Code are subject to a student referendum. "Changes to basic principles of the Honor Code and to the basic structure of the committees that adjudicate charges requires the approval of three-quarters of the students," explained Davis.

Last spring, the necessity of a student referendum was hotly debated in Community Council, resulting in the current vote on the Honor Code changes.

Finally, the new language aims to foster a more clear understanding of student and faculty roles under the Code by reorganizing the Handbook's treatment of this topic. In addition, the revisions include a section clearly spelling out the definitions of academic dishonesty offenses.

While these changes are "more editorial than substantive," Davis said they yield a "more concise and consistent form." In the old Handbook language, this information was "scattered" over numerous pages, whereas now it appears in one coherent section.

Jordan pointed out that "an advantage of this clarity in Handbook language is that it provides some source that one might post on the Web," and also enables faculty members to incorporate it into their syllabi.

On compiling definitions of offenses, Jasinski expressed that "Middlebury students are generally intelligent and should not have a hard time understanding that they should not 'copy each other's work,' 'plagiarize' or 'cheat,' whether these three items are listed sequentially or separately." She admitted, however, that the combined definitions create "easiest student access to the parameters of the Honor Code."

She hailed the delineation of student and faculty member responsibilities as the "best gains in the proposed changes." She said professors often have conflicting policies on what is acceptable aid, so that "if this tenet of the changes is approved, it will eliminate charges that arise out of pure confusion, assumption and miscommunication."

In sum, said Jasinski, the changes subject to student referendum later this week constitute "one of the most important matters facing Middlebury students" because it will "impact the judicial process for generations to come."

Since there are five separate changes that must be voted all up or all down, "students should understand the full benefits and ramifications of their vote and decide accordingly," Jasinski urged.