The Honor Committee met Sunday to discuss concerns regarding case processing over summer and winter breaks. Though the conversation was ultimately inconclusive, the Committee discussed how to balance its reduced capacity over school breaks with the fact that accused students might want their hearings to take place sooner, particularly while witnesses still have a strong memory of the case.
Laura Howard, chair of the Committee and fourth-year College student, said the issue has been an ongoing concern and that while summer scheduling is difficult, the Committee aims to ensure fair and efficient proceedings when they are requested.
“There are competing concerns,” Howard said. “We want to be [timely] and efficient and give students the ability to have their case proceed if they'd like it to … but there's also our concern about our ability to do it with the capacity of our support officers.”
The Committee’s investigation process begins when an Honor offense is reported. A support officer in the Counsel pool then conducts the investigation, which includes gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses and compiling findings into an Investigative Report. This report is reviewed by a panel of three Committee members, who determine if the case should move forward to a formal hearing or be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
For periods outside of the fall and spring semesters, the Committee pauses case-proceedings by default, unless they are requested by the accused student and support officers are available to staff the case. This option became available July 1, 2023, when the Committee transformed its single sanction approach — which required either expulsion or a two-semester leave of absence for all students found guilty of committing an Honor infraction — into a multi-sanction system. Students who were accused of Honor violations had the option to continue case processings over the summer or wait until after July 1.
Some cases, however, do take longer periods of time to process. Howard said that where an accused student does not submit an Informed Retraction — acknowledging responsibility early in the process and bypassing the trial for guilt straight into the sanctioning process — the case requires an investigation and a hearing for guilt, to determine if the student is guilty of an honor offense.
Howard said that unlike investigations and panels for sanctions, hearings for guilt cannot be held remotely, meaning they cannot take place outside of the Fall and Spring semesters. This means that, should a student not submit an Informed Retraction for an alleged Honor offense reported late in the semester, the investigation would push into the break, with the hearing for guilt having to take place in the next semester.
The Committee considered two options for how investigations of honor offenses that get reported towards the end of the spring semester can be handled — the options being to either conduct the investigations over non-school periods or to wait until everyone returns to Grounds to do so.
Some support officers said that processing cases during non-school periods, such as over the summer, poses logistical challenges for students and faculty who must navigate the process remotely. Others noted that processing cases when school is not in session reduces the overall time it takes to process a case and enables the memories of witnesses to be more reliable.
Seamus Oliver, vice chair for investigations and third-year College student, said that even if witness testimonies are collected during a summer investigation, witnesses' memories may still be unreliable months later, when it comes time for a trial.
“Regardless of when the investigation takes place over the summer, all [we] can do is establish a written record,” Oliver said. “No matter what, there is going to be a sense of haziness.”
Beyond concerns over witnesses’ memories of cases, Alexander Church, vice chair for hearings and third-year Engineering student, said that summer case processing also poses scheduling concerns.
According to Church, the investigation for one case over the summer concluded in early July, but the pre-hearing conference did not occur until mid-August due to scheduling conflicts. Further, he said that the final hearing was not held until another month later.
“There were a lot of weird gaps that just had to be worked with because we were still [in proceedings],” Church said. “The case wasn't on hold but … the counsel had trouble meeting and interacting specifically with the student.”
The Committee then addressed similar concerns regarding case-processing logistics and fairness during January terms. The Committee debated whether it is appropriate to notify students of Honor reports against them — often referred to as "cold calling" by the Committee — during the winter break or to wait until students return to Grounds.
Oliver said that students often stress when they know a report has been filed but do not receive official communication from the Committee for weeks due to a school break. However, he also said that a cold call before January Term could add unnecessary stress for students.
According to Oliver, notifying students just before the start of their holiday only for the process to be put on hold leaves them with unresolved concerns during their break.
“People were frustrated by the looming report, [when] their professor had informed them that [they would be] hearing from Honor at some point … or you’re getting a cold call immediately before your trip and the case is going on hold,” Oliver said. “It strikes me as two bad options.”
Thomas Ackleson, vice chair for operations and third-year Engineering student, said that delaying the cold call poses fairness concerns, as accused students have a right to be informed when an allegation is made.
“I would be livid if I found out that information was [withheld] for a month … there are questions of fairness,” Ackleson said. “It’s better for all parties to [know] as soon as possible.”
Howard said that the Committee will continue the discussion on case processing during non-school days at their next meeting on Oct. 6. The meeting will also include the Committee’s first scheduled “voting day” of the semester, where they plan to vote on bylaw changes. These voting days are designated for decisions on major bylaw adjustments. The meeting is set for Sunday at 7 p.m. in the trial room of Newcomb Hall.
Read More
University modifies capacity restrictions for the Hill ahead of Saturday game
By Caroline Hagood | 2 hours agoAccess to the Hill will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis for eligible fans until the space reaches capacity.
EDITORIAL: Student self-governance should be for us all
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThe administration’s recent suspension of the University Guide Services further demonstrates a willingness to dismiss the practice of bottom-up student self-governance.
Chanel Craft Tanner aims to expand Women's Center programming as director
By Zackary Holt | YesterdayIn addition to enhancing the Women’s Center’s mentorship programs for local students, Tanner said she hopes to form stronger relationships with other local organizations.
