Next week, the Honor Committee will vote on a proposal to increase the expediency with which honor charges are handled. This proposal will increase the efficiency of the honor trial process but also lacks safeguards necessary to protect students. The Committee is right to continually work toward a faster trial process but should not overlook potential problems in its efforts to do so.
The notification of formal accusation of an honor offense includes five to six dates, selected by the Vice Chair for Trials, on which a trial can be held if the student should desire one. The student must select one of these dates or notify the Committee if he cannot make any of the given dates within 10 days. It seems unlikely that a student would not be able to make one of six dates for something as important as an honor trial, and Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples pointed out that this change is aimed at those students who request a trial but intentionally try to delay it. Currently a student can do this by submitting a request for a trial but not submitting a date for which he is available within the 10 day trial request period. In this case, the Vice Chair for Trials selects a date and if the student would like to change this date, a pre-trial panel must be formed, which Staples said takes at least a week. The proposed change will allow the Vice Chair for Trials to work with the student directly if he would like to request a different date, making the process much more efficient. Additionally, should a student prove unable to establish a trial date within 10 days of his initial notification, he would be assumed to leave admitting guilt.
This proposal puts a lot of power in the hands of the Vice Chair for Trials. Staples noted, “The Vice Chair for Trials has the ability to determine what is a good excuse,” as well as the best ability to find new dates on which a trial could be held. Staples also said if a student was unable to respond within 10 days for a legitimate reason, the Committee would be understanding of that. The proposed result of not specifying a viable trial date, however, makes it much more important that the Committee ensure such a guarantee exists. While a student can appeal the status of leaving admitting guilt, it is a weighty consequence that should not be taken lightly.
If a student was unavailable for trial on one of the suggested dates, the Vice Chair for Trials should instead attempt to meet with the student to work out a date. In person, it is easier to judge if a student has a legitimate conflict or if he is merely trying to delay a trial unnecessarily. Such weighty decisions cannot be made based solely on e-mail correspondence. If a person fails to respond to the e-mail and does not have a good reason for doing so, it is acceptable to declare he has decided to leave admitting guilt. Miscommunication, however, is always possible, and a face-to-face meeting will reduce this possibility greatly.
By looking for ways to make the trial process more efficient, the Committee is fulfilling its obligation to serve the student body. The Committee, however, should reevaluate this proposal to ensure appropriate safeguards, such as meeting with the student, so a student is not declared to have left admitting guilt without an intention to do so.
Read More
EDITORIAL: University admin — guide us through your decision to suspend the Guide Service
By Editorial Board | September 2, 2024The University owes our community a thorough and substantiated explanation of their actions.
EDITORIAL: May 4 was unacceptable — administration seems to disagree
By Editorial Board | August 29, 2024The Goldilocks ending — the solution that preserves students’ rights while upholding safety — lies in between August 2017 and May 2024.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
