The Honor Committee transitioned to a multi-sanction system in July 2023, marking a historic shift from the single-sanction model that had governed the University’s honor system since 1842. The new approach replaced the automatic single-sanction — a two semester leave of absence at the time — with a range of sanctions tailored to the specifics of each case, offering options from rehabilitative measures like educational seminars to more punitive actions such as suspension and expulsion.
Over the past three semesters, the Committee has focused on fine-tuning the processes that underpin the change — working to ensure the new system upholds core principles like restoration, proportionality and fairness in sanctioning. This period of refinement has raised broader questions about the Committee’s sanctioning philosophy — particularly how to balance fairness with flexibility, and how to maintain consistency while honoring the individual circumstances of each case.
The University’s Honor System was established in 1842 and is based on the idea of a Community of Trust — the shared commitment of students, faculty and administrators to uphold the honor code. The system works to hold all students accountable to the honor pledge they take against acts of lying, cheating or stealing. From its founding, the system’s single-sanction model mandated expulsion for conviction of any honor offense. However, in 2022, students voted to replace expulsion with a two-semester suspension, addressing concerns that the single-sanction model was overly punitive and disproportionately impacted marginalized groups.
Building on this momentum, the Committee adopted the multi-sanction system in 2023 — reintroducing expulsion alongside a broader spectrum of options to better reflect the values of fairness and accountability. These changes were driven by the Committee’s Constitutional Convention and a student referendum under Gabrielle Bray, former chair of the Committee and class of 2023 alumna.
Under Bray, the Convention invited delegates from over 30 Contracted Independent Organizations to draft a framework for the new multi-sanction system. Using this feedback, the Committee refined and consolidated these ideas into a final proposal — which was then presented to the student body in a referendum during student elections. Students ultimately approved the adoption of the multi-sanction system, with 88.69 percent of students voting in favor.
By allowing students to repair harm and regain their place within the Community of Trust, the multi-sanction system aimed to promote growth and learning over automatic punishment.
The single-sanction model mandated a single consequence and did not consider paths for this sort of restoration. Laura Howard, chair of the Committee and fourth-year College student, said that because the possibility for restoration was a big reason for the shift to multi sanction, restorative sanctions were the Committee’s focus immediately following the referendum’s implementation during the term of her predecessor Hamza Aziz, former chair of the Committee and class of 2024 alumnus.
“[The Committee was] keeping the goal of restoration in mind a lot [in 2023] because that was the largest change from the single-sanction [system],” Howard said. “I would argue that [this] goal has [also] carried on into this year.”
Since the multi-sanction system’s implementation, the Committee has employed a range of restorative sanctions like ethics seminars, mentorship programs and reflective writings to help students understand the impact of their actions. For example, the seven-week restorative seminar brings sanctioned students together for weekly sessions led by Committee members, prompting dialogue on honor principles and encouraging reflection. According to a document provided by the Committee, the seminar has been used in at least 18 cases to address offenses ranging from unauthorized aid to plagiarism. Prior to the shift, the students involved in the 18 cases would have been dealt suspensions, regardless of the specifics of the case.
While restoration was a driving focus under Aziz, Howard said that the focus of the current term has expanded to include “proportionality.” Proportionality refers to the process of evaluating whether a punishment fits the specific violation, ensuring sanctions are neither excessively harsh nor overly lenient. For example, honor cases can range from minor infractions — like checking answers online for a low-stakes homework assignment — to more serious offenses, such as plagiarism on a major thesis or exam.
The multi-sanction system allows the Committee to distinguish between minor infractions and more serious violations. This flexibility has created benefits for faculty as well as accused students. Under the single-sanction model, faculty members were hesitant to report minor infractions, as all guilty verdicts led to suspension or expulsion. Now, faculty members can report infractions to the Committee without the looming threat of removing students from the University.
The responsibility for addressing concerns about proportionality has largely been assigned to the Ad-Hoc Sanctions Working Group, a subcommittee created at the start of Howard’s term. Chaired by Will Hancock, vice chair for the undergraduate community and third-year College student, SWG is tasked with improving and designing procedures for a panel for sanction — the stage in a case where a panel of five Committee members reviews evidence, hears arguments for sanctions and decides on an appropriate outcome. SWG also works to draft new sanctions and refine existing ones to address gaps in the current sanctioning system.
One change that has come as a result of SWG’s work is a recent procedural update, which was introduced Oct. 6 and passed through a bylaw change Oct. 20. The change granted the Counsel for the Community — Committee members who represent the University community in a case — greater discretion to present their own independent arguments in a panel for sanctions, separate from the reporter’s perspective.
The update also established a pre-sanctioning process, a phase where evidence and arguments for potential sanctions are prepared and shared with all parties before the panel convenes, providing guilty students clearer notice of the arguments.
The changes aimed to ensure that students’ rights, as outlined in the Honor Constitution — such as the right to be informed of evidence and proposed sanctions — were upheld through the sanctioning process. Hancock said that the original bylaws were developed quickly, leaving procedural gaps that needed adjustment as the system evolved.
“[The Sanctions Working Group was] making sure the students' rights that were guaranteed in the Constitution were secure not just at the hearing for guilt … but at the panel for sanctions,” Hancock said. “These were such fresh bylaws that there were some gaps.”
Hancock said that fine-tuning processes took up much of SWG’s time this term, but that the subcommittee will now focus on outlining new sanctions. Earlier this term, the Committee mentioned the issue of a severity gap in sanctions — a lack of intermediate options between rehabilitative measures, like educational seminars, and more severe penalties, such as suspension or expulsion. To address this, SWG is developing new ways to fill this gap, such as using transcript notations more frequently as an intermediate sanction.
“Some of our sanctions work [was] paused while we were overhauling the panel for sanction process,” Hancock said. “Now, we’re able to return a little bit more towards sanctions.”
Though the Committee provides sanctioning guidelines to assist panelists from the Panel for Sanctions in their evaluations, the guidelines are not mandates — panelists still retain full discretion to determine sanctions they find appropriate based on the specifics of each case. Hancock said that senior support officers — experienced members who train and guide other support officers — attend SWG meetings to stay informed on new guidelines, ensuring they can effectively train members on updated procedures.
But SWG is far from the only group working to improve the sanctioning process. Recently, the Policies & Procedures Committee — a subcommittee responsible for reviewing and proposing changes to the Committee’s bylaws — introduced a formalized "precedent document." The document consolidates public summaries of past cases with similar offenses and outcomes, serving as a reference tool to promote consistency while preserving flexibility. However, its use is not mandatory, which allows panelists the freedom to evaluate each case independently.
Howard said that given the unique circumstances that every guilty student faces, the discretion granted to panelists is a key advantage of the multi-sanction system — flexibility enables panelists to tailor sanctions to the unique circumstances of each case, rather than sanctions that are constrained by rigid precedent.
“Each individual student is completely different, and their commission of an Honor offense is completely different,” Howard said. “The discretion of the panel for sanction is actually an advantage, because it enables them to be flexible and adapt to what each individual student needs.”
This flexibility is overseen and supported by the vice chair for sanctions — a role introduced with the multi-sanction system to ensure fairness and procedural consistency in sanctioning panels. Carson Breus, fourth-year Commerce student, became the inaugural vice chair for sanctions Apr. 2023 and is currently serving her second term in the position. Breus has staffed approximately 60 cases thus far.
In her role as a neutral facilitator, Breus ensures that deliberations in sanctions are conducted fairly and in accordance with the Committee’s guidelines. This responsibility involves maintaining procedural integrity and clarifying the sanctioning process to panelists, without advocating for specific sanctioning outcomes.
Breus said that the Committee’s early experiences with the multi-sanction system were marked by adjustment and learning, as panelists navigated new procedures and exercised individual judgment in sanctioning cases. Initially, panelists worked to create non-binding precedents for the first time with the Committee’s guiding principles in mind.
“Creating [sanctioning] precedent can be a very daunting thing [for panelists],” Breus said. “[With] a system that is so new, changes are always in flux.”
Hancock said that the Committee’s processes will change with the evolving needs of the student body, and that there is no perfect standard for sanctioning. While the Committee is working to refine its overarching sanctioning philosophy — outlining which sanctions to use and the reasoning behind them — he said this philosophy might evolve over time to reflect changes in the student body’s perspectives on fairness, accountability and restoration within the honor system.
“[If] the [student body]’ view on sanctioning changes over the next five years, so should the Committee’s view, because we are a student-run system,” Hancock said. “It is less that [the Committee] is reaching for some sort of golden right, but [that] we’re reaching for what represents student views the best on sanctioning.”
Read More
Honor Week aims to highlight legacy and future of the Honor System
By Bertie Azqueta | 1 hours agoA full list of events for the week is available on the Honor Committee’s website.
Uncovering the unknown depth behind the celebrity look-alike contest boom
By Delores Cyrus | 1 hours agoThe trend kicked off in October in New York, and since then celebrity look-alike contests have taken over the minds and social media feeds of both casual scrollers and the chronically online for the last few months.
Women’s sports are finally getting the recognition they deserve
By Cierra Lyles | 2 hours agoAttendance at women's sporting events is at an all-time high.
