By Mary Pumphrey
|
October 18, 2004
At a University that values the integrity of its community so highly, some students are asking why an offense against trust -- sexual assault (including forcible rape) -- is not enforced by the single sanction when lying (even if it's to a professor about being sick when you were actually hung over), stealing (even if that means participating in the famed fake Brown swipe at Newcomb Dining Hall) or cheating (on even the most minor of assignments) are all subject to the honor code's strict sanctions.
Currently, students found guilty of sexual assault are subject to a variety of sanctions including disciplinary probation, suspension and expulsion.
The difference between the standards used in honor cases and those used in sexual assault cases is the same as the difference between honor and all other University disciplinary proceedings, said Shamim Sisson, senior associate dean of students.
Not applying the single sanction to sexual assault cases and the differences in proceedings between honor and all other University disciplinary proceedings "in some way are historical vestiges." Until the early 1950s, the University had no formal standards of conduct for students beyond those against lying, cheating and stealing and no formal way of dealing with non-honor offenses, Sisson said.
Adopting a single-sanction system for sexual assault cases might lead to a situation similar to the one many critics of the honor system say exists -- the "seriousness clause problem." The problem occurs when authorities (student juries in honor cases and the Sexual Assault Board in sexual assault cases) believe students are guilty of less serious offenses and should not be expelled but they are unable to impose lesser punishments.