The Single Sanction ad-hoc committee held an open forum last night to address the upcoming referendum calling for a multiple-sanction system — proposed by Hoos Against the Single Sanction — on the spring elections ballot. The forum, which lasted an hour, was moderated by the ad-hoc committee Chair Adam Trusner.
The forum allowed Honor Committee members and students to debate the advantages and disadvantages of the referendum, which would change the current single-sanction system into a multiple-sanction system and still include expulsion as a possible punishment for an honor offense. An official representative from Hoos Against Single Sanction was not present, but group president Sam Leven provided a letter explaining some of the potential benefits of the multiple-sanction system outlined in the referendum and addressing some students’ concerns about the proposal. Many students also discussed their fear that they would not be informed enough about the proposal by the time elections start, and consequently may end up voting yes or no based solely on the issue of the single sanction and not on the referendum specifically.
Discussion then turned to the procedural implications of the referendum. Fourth-year College student Courtney Costello said she attended the forum to hear other students’ opinions about the referendum.
“I think the referendum has very good ideals behind it,” Costellos said. “I am against single sanction. I think having multiple sanctions would be fairer, ideally.”
Other students at the meeting, however, expressed less favorable views about the referendum.
“My new understanding is that it is an honor offense if act and intent occur and triviality determines punishment,” said honor counsel JJ Litchford, a third-year College student, of the referendum. “Currently, triviality is part of determining an honor offense.”
Litchford said an act could be considered trivial if “open toleration of the act in question would not be inconsistent with the community of trust.”
He also said he is more concerned with the difficulty involved in actually implementing the referendum, should it pass — and not the idea of single sanction itself.
“My position on this amendment has nothing to do with the debate on single sanction,” Litchford said. “It is specifically to do with how difficult it would be to implement this referendum in any sort of workable manner into the honor constitution and bylaws.”
Third-year Law student Carey Mignerey, who served as Committee chair from 2003 to 2004, also said he opposes the referendum because of logistical issues associated with the referendum.
“With a student who has a petty offense brought up against them, do we really want to drag them through weeks and weeks of trial?” he said. “And suppose they thought it was unfair. They have no constitutional right to appeal. Those are drafting issues.”
The proposed referendum calls for changes to Articles II and V of the Honor Committee’s constitution, such that students found guilty of act and intent, but not found guilty of non-triviality, shall be considered to have committed a trivial honor violation. This would effectively issue punishments for cases currently dismissed as being trivial, but would also no longer require dismissal from the University for students found guilty of an honor offense.
If passed, the referendum suggests that the Honor Committee should develop a range of sanctions and enforcement procedures to punish such “trivial” honor offenses. Additionally, “three Honor Committee members who have observed the entire trial shall, in accordance with the Honor by-laws made under the above provisions, determine the lesser sanction to be applied,” and “the Trial Panel hearing a case shall be informed by the Trial Chair prior to verdict deliberations that a verdict of guilty on act and intent but not guilty on triviality shall result in a sanction less than expulsion being applied to the accused student.”
Students will have the opportunity to vote for or against the referendum when polls open Monday. A three-fifths majority vote is required for passage, provided that at least 10 percent of the student body has voted in favor of the referendum.
Read More
The ‘Batten Curve’ — what’s the big deal?
By Bennett Galper and Nina Broderick | 2 days agoBatten students are also involved in conversations about potential policy changes, with some taking an active role in advocacy efforts.
UJC sees “major influx” of cases with 38 adjudicated so far this term
By Ford McCracken | 2 days agoAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | 4 days agoLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
