Photo by Hannah Plishtin
Because of its confidentiality rules, the Honor Council is often perceived as a mysterious organization, unlike the more transparent SGA, House Council and various other committees and organizations. Though the Council handles Honor Code violations, a task that is important to the integrity of the academic community, not much has been known about it in the wider campus community.
Instituted in 1922, the Honor Code is a defining feature of Connecticut College, allowing students to be personally responsible for their academic and social actions and creating a sense of trust and community among students and faculty. Students are expected to uphold the Honor Code at all times, but when violations do occur, those students are judged by a panel of their fellow students: the Honor Council.
On Friday, November 11, Honor Council put on a mock trial to demonstrate how a typical hearing works and how Honor Council operates. Alicia Cauteruccio ’12, Chair of Honor Council, described the purpose of the mock trial. “One of the most important things about the judicial process is that we really do value confidentiality, but, at the same time, students really do need to be educated about how the judicial process works, because it is so unique to Connecticut College. Students do ask for more transparency in the judicial process, but it is difficult.”
“Having these mock hearings is a great way for students to come in and educate themselves and be able to witness what a hearing is like without us having to compromise our standards of confidentiality. Even if you’re not anticipating ever coming before us, it’s always good to know how the process works.”
Before the trial began, Cauteruccio explained that Honor Council acquires cases through campus safety reports as well as reports filed by students, faculty, staff and other community members. A committee, led by Cauteruccio, reviews these reports and decides which cases should be brought before Honor Council in order to subsequently determine the appropriate response or punishment.
The trial began with the members of the Honor Council panel introducing themselves. The panel consists of students as well as advisor Sarah Cardwell, Associate Dean of Student Life.
For the mock trial, Honor Council member Taylor Gould ’13 acted as the respondent in a case of a violation of academic integrity. In this case his professor accused him of both using outside sources on his history midterm when he was expressly told not to, and also of plagiarizing those sources. The professor found hyperlinks in Gould’s essay that led to evidence of direct plagiarism when investigated.
Gould was asked if he had any conflicting interests with any of the members of the council. He said he knew Dean Cardwell, but her presence was nevertheless deemed acceptable because she does not vote on the cases. If the respondent knows someone on the panel in a way that would make the situation uncomfortable for that panel member, resulting in a bias, the council member will remove himself or herself from that case.
Cauteruccio then proceeded to read aloud the letter from the professor accusing the respondent of plagiarism. The midterm, signed with the Honor Code, was attached to the letter as evidence, including the description of the assignment.
The respondent read the Honor Code pledge aloud. He was offered the chance to make an opening statement, in which he said that he had been very busy at the time of the midterm, rushed the assignment, took notes off online sources and did not notice or know how those notes and hyperlinks directly translated into his essay. He pleaded responsible, although he had initially denied plagiarism when confronted by his professor. The trial proceeded, with the members of the council asking questions of the respondent to contextualize the situation and determine the respondent’s level of responsibility.
Honor Council treats each case differently and therefore gathers as much information as possible about the specific case and the context of the situation. The panel asked many questions about a variety of aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s relationship with his professor, his writing process, his grade in the class at the time, his motivation to use other sources, his preparation for the midterm, his understanding of academic integrity and plagiarism, time constraints on the assignment, how his actions might affect his classmates and how he may work to prevent future offenses.
The council asked these questions and offered advice, such as the possibility of consulting the Writing Center. Members of the Council emphasized the importance of the judicial process as a learning process; Honor Council does not simply aim to punish people. It is of the utmost importance, they argued, that students understand and learn from their mistakes and so are able to work on preventing future violations.
After the respondent answered the questions, he was offered the opportunity to make a closing statement, in which he expressed his wish to apologize to his professor and classmates, emphasizing that Honor Code violations do not reflect well on the entire community. Cauteruccio then stressed the importance of confidentiality.
After the trial, the audience asked questions of the council to further illuminate the judicial process at Conn. After a hearing, the council meets to discuss the case. If the respondent is found not responsible, that is the end of the case. If the respondent is deemed responsible, the council then discusses the appropriate sanction.
Typical sanctions, in cases of academic integrity violations, include failing the assignment, failing the class, or either dropping or capping the grade. The council makes these suggestions to the professor, but the professor has the final decision.
Contrary to popular belief, if someone is found responsible for an academic integrity violation, they are absolutely not allowed to withdraw from that class. The respondent can also receive a social warning, be put on social probation, be suspended or be expelled.
Before determining the final sanction, Honor Council meets with one of its faculty advisors, Philosophy professor Simon Feldman or Mathematics professor Kathy McKeon, to discuss the case and receive feedback, without using the respondent’s name. If the adviser seriously disagrees with the ruling, Honor Council will reconvene to discuss the case again.
Respondents may also appeal a decision and use the judicial review process if he or she feels that the ruling was unfair. Before a hearing, respondents may also talk to a Judicial Process Ombudsperson to learn more about the process. Honor Council strives to create a fair process that allows them to gain a deeper understanding of the case and involve a variety of opinions, members emphasized in their presentation. •
