The Honor Committee is currently looking at two changes to its constitutional bylaws and general policies that would have a significant impact on the honor system as a whole.
The first of these changes occurred at Sunday's weekly meeting, during which the Committee passed its new plagiarism and paraphrasing supplement in a 19-0 vote. The supplement will be added to the Committee's "green book" of policies and procedures. First presented by J.J. Litchford, vice chair for community relations, at the Committee's Sept. 20 meeting, the proposal has undergone several edits, both by Litchford and Chair David Truetzel.
The adopted version of the supplement states that it is "designed to elaborate on one element of cheating - plagiarism - with a particular emphasis on one kind of potential plagiarism - paraphrasing the ideas or work of another." The Committee defines plagiarism and paraphrasing, and also provides acceptable and unacceptable examples for each concept.
Litchford, who worked with a number of professional and academic experts on the supplement, said he was pleased that the Committee voted in favor of the changes.
"It represents us being able to identify things that need improvement, and then have a thorough discussion on them to make sure we get every detail right," Litchford said. "This passing represented everyone compromising really well and making sure we remember the intention of passing [the proposal] is to make it better for students."
Truetzel agreed, adding that the supplement will clarify the definition of plagiarism for the University community as a whole.
Until its green books can be reprinted, the Committee will soon launch a publicity campaign to alert students to the change and explain the supplement's contents, Truetzel said.
In addition Sunday to approving the supplement, the Committee also began to discuss a new proposal that would give convicted students the opportunity to appeal to the student body to overturn the ruling of their trials.
The proposal, presented by Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander Cohen, states that "a convicted student would have the right to have the facts of his case placed before the community and have his conviction overturned if, in the judgment of the community, he should have not [been] convicted." This appeal will require a convicted student to waive his right to privacy altogether.
Cohen suggested that a one-page report of a case could be released to students. The convicted student would then have to receive 500 signatures from the student body for the case to be overturned.
Cohen said he believes such an appeals process would engage the University community and the Committee in an enhanced discussion, and would also ensure that the Committee's and jury's
Read More
UJC sees “major influx” of cases with 38 adjudicated so far this term
By Ford McCracken | 12 hours agoAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | YesterdayLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
Honor Committee discusses panelist questioning policy in new sanctioning framework
By Lexie Stadler | YesterdayThe Committee discussed two potential approaches for determining the relevance of panelist questions.
