OLD GOLD AND BLACK REPORTER
Does the honor system really give students a fair and just trial? Are trials as swift as they could be? Is the honor council or judicial board member that I elected taking his job seriously? These questions have circulated throughout the campus for nearly 10 years, but are they problems that other universities face as well?
Faced with an alarming lack of confidence in the honor system on the parts of both students and faculty members, Ken Zick, the vice president for student life and instructional resources, decided to answer these questions himself. Zick's 1989 summer intern, Marybeth Torbet, '89, conducted the study, and in July of 1989 she submitted a report to Zick detailing the honor systems at 28 other universities. Torbet identified several major problems with this university's honor system: students' lack of respect for and knowledge of the system, the lack of consistency in prosecutions and penalties levied by the boards and a delay in judicial action.
With the exception of adding a deliberating faculty member to the Honor Council, no major changes have been made in the honor system since the study was compiled in 1989. In the study, Torbet recommended that if the university is to revise its system it should look to Dartmouth College for a model. Bucknell College was also included in the study and soon after revamped their entire system.
According to Jeffrey Beyer, the president of The Dartmouth, the school's independent newspaper, the honor system at Dartmouth has not been changed in many years.
"There are few, if any, complaints about the system," he said. At Dartmouth, unlike the university, one judicial system oversees both academic and social violations. Instead of having a judicial board and an honor council, Dartmouth has a Committee on Standards which hears cases.
Cases proceed to this body only if the dean of the college feels that the penalty sanctioned will be greater than "College Discipline" (the denial of use of college facilities).
The Committee on Standards comprises three faculty members who are elected by the faculty, three juniors or seniors elected by the student body and two additional members chosen by the president.
Only juniors and seniors are allowed to serve on the committee, which may account for the confidence in the system, which Beyer says is prevalent on the campus.
Similar to Wake Forest, Dartmouth does provide a written description of the honor system in its student handbook. Specific violations, however, are codified in the Dartmouth handbook. Torbet noted in her study that there was a great deal of consistency in the Dartmouth honor system. Beyer agreed with Torbet's observation, saying, "The system is fairly consistent. Most people who appear in front of the Committee on Standards are found guilty."
Bucknell: Changes mean more campus involvement
Bucknell is similar to Wake Forest in that it recently reevaluated and reformed its honor system. In 1993, after an eighteen month scrutinizing of the system's philosophy, Bucknell revamped its judicial process. According to Jerry Commerford, the associate dean of students at Bucknell, the newly designed Community Judicial Board is responsible for hearing cases involving conduct violations. This board was reformed to include four rotating hearing panels each composed of four students, two faculty members and one administrator. Hearings are scheduled eight times a semester, so each board must moderate two hearings.
Commerford said that he is pleased with the changes that were introduced because they have allowed more students, staff and faculty to become involved in the system. Additionally the process has become more open, with the board disclosing more information to the community. "We can now advise the community of sanctions which may be given, whereas before the whole process was very concealed," he said.
Like Wake Forest, Bucknell has a separate board which hears cases involving academic violations. However the number of faculty members on the Board of Review on Academic Responsibility outweighs the number of students by a three-to-two ratio. The students on this board are drawn from the Community Judicial Board.
At Bucknell it is not the responsibility of the university to emphasize the existence and importance of the honor code. Instead, a separate body on academic concerns emphasizes compliance with the code.
Torbet noted in her 1989 study that because all Bucknell cases must receive the approval of the Dean of Students before they can be heard by the Judicial Board, students may be denied the right to a trial by their peers. This policy, which remains in effect today, could also be said of Dartmouth. By contrast, Wake Forest grants every student the right to a trial before his peers if he wishes to contest the charges placed against him.
Emory: Most similar to Wake Forest
The system in place at Emory is most similar to the current system at Wake. Emory has both an Honor Council and a Conduct Council. Both bodies are composed of equal numbers of students and faculty, but students must be appointed to the boards. For a student to be appointed to the Honor Council he must be selected by a special committee comprising students, faculty and Honor Council members. A student must be appointed by the Dean to serve on the Conduct Council.
A conduct officer, who fulfills a role similar to the investigator in trials at Wake Forest, plays a major part in the system. He, too, is appointed by the Dean and is responsible for gathering information relevant to the case, presenting the charges to the accused and notifying the accused of his rights.