The Honor Committee will hold a panel Feb. 17 in the University Chapel to discuss three proposed referenda, which — if passed — will open the possibility for a multi-sanction system. The Committee members will also share their opinions and thoughts on the issue, and allow panel attendees to ask questions on each of the proposed referenda.
Honor Committee Chair Nicholas Hine, a fourth-year College student, said the panel is an attempt to expand an informational campaign to share the Committee’s opinions.
“The students I’ve talked to have a lot of questions about these three referendum, and one thing we want to emphasize is that they aren’t coming directly from the Honor Committee,” Hine said. “The second is that we want to put out some of the things that we are thinking, so people are seeing both sides of the issue and considering all the angles before it goes to the ballot.”
Fourth-year Architecture representative Tyler Pitt said the opinions to be discussed during the panel will be on an individual basis as Committee members have differing opinions on the pros and cons of each referenda.
“We decided that as a Committee, we are not taking a stance or endorsing any of the proposals officially,” Pitt said. “But we do think it is really important for students to know what our opinions are, because we are the representatives and we deal with issues of honor everyday.”
Third-year College student Martese Johnson, vice chair for community relations, said the panel is a great way to reach out to and educate the University without speaking down to students.
“I think the best aspect is … allowing University students to provide their opinions at the same time as we are sharing ours,” Johnson said. “It is important for the student body to always have a say and to share their opinions and concerns.”
Vice Chair for Education Joe Martin, fourth-year Commerce student, agreed and stated the main goal of the panel is to encourage students to vote on the proposed referenda.
“People are going to be wondering what the representatives they voted for are thinking about these issues,” Martin said. “Our goal is to let them know what we, as individuals that they elected, think about these issues and encourage them to think about that, in addition to everything else that they are hearing and make whatever vote they think is appropriate.”
Hine said he ran and was elected on the platform of a single-sanction system and still supports that system.
“I think its important to note that this isn’t a vote for or against the single-sanction necessarily in a sense that it would create a binding change,” Hine said. “While I am personally a single-sanction supporter, I do think that the conversation about the single-sanction debate is a healthy part of the system.”
All three referenda will be voted upon Feb. 20-26.
Read More
The ‘Batten Curve’ — what’s the big deal?
By Bennett Galper and Nina Broderick | 10 hours 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 | YesterdayAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | 2 days agoLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
