Honor Council Minutes

December 3, 2000

“Basically, I don’t want to see any of you again.” - Sarah

“I have a carrot in my mouth.” - Lucy

“Well, I’m sure that we could find something to argue about.” - Andrew

“Keep your pants on, Ari.” - Celeste

Present: Ben Huebner (secretary), Lucy Lyon (co-chair), Sarah Waring, Caitlin Costello, Jenn Louie (co-chair), Tyson Oberndorfer, Ari Worthman, Hannah Dickinson, Celeste Moore, Amelia Winchester, Andrew Peterson, Gayathri Ramabadran , Rachel Werner

Absent: Ethan Sorrelgreen, Elizabeth Sullivan

I. Moment of Silence.

II. Council Breaking the Code Committee - Ari started us off by reporting that the Council Breaking the Code Committee had met and discussed whether a possible change in the Honor Code could allow the number of Honor Council members on a jury to be reduced to reduce the conflict of interest. Avid readers of the minutes will know we have talked about this before. The new twist being considered is that this provision would only come into effect if it was found that not enough Honor Council members could be fielded due to conflicts of interest. A letter to the community put up on the Comment Board would ask people what they felt about such a change.

Hannah immediately brought up the concern that Matt Spigelman had raised at a previous meeting, that this could be construed as Honor Council overstepping its bounds, because it concerns resolutions to be brought up at Plenary. Lucy replied that the committee had talked extensively about this matter, but felt that by posting on the Comment Board they were raising community awareness and asking for community input. Celeste asked that the committee make this clear that this was their intent in the Comment Board posting, as opposed to a letter which just presented two choices as the only options. Hannah suggested that they do this by posing questions to the community, as opposed to options. Ari, on the hand, felt that the subcommittee was justified in its work, seeing it as part of our role as elected leaders. Andrew disagreed, saying that Honor Council members are elected to administer the Honor Code, not change it. Ari countered that there were many things that were not explicitly listed in the Honor Code that Honor Council saw as part of their duties. Hannah reiterated her concern that more weight would be given to a resolution if it somehow was seen as an “Honor Council” resolution, even if this effect was unintended. Sarah pointed out that the whole reason that the committee was putting a letter on the Comment Board was to illicit responses and make it not just an “Honor Council” resolution. Ari agreed that when writing the letter, he will take these considerations into account.

Tyson, however, had a concern about the content of the changes Ari proposed. He thought that if Honor Council members could choose whether or not they were on a trial involving a fellow Council member, the conflict of interest would still arise. Ari thought that this would make it more like a normal trial. Ben agreed with Tyson, saying that the conflict of interest that has occurred in past cases have sometimes been in spite of the fact that Council members thought they could check their biases. Caitlin had an interesting thought, that perhaps if Ari’s suggestion was taken, it could apply to any kind of case where a large number of Council members felt a conflict of interest. Sarah wished that more community members were present, so that we could bounce ideas off them. This comment returned us to the previous discussion above. Hannah volunteered the Community Outreach Committee to organize a forum on the subject.

III. JSAAP - Amelia informed us that JSAAP had met. They are making plans to have non-alcohol events around Snowball, a time in the past when way too many people have had trouble with alcohol.

IV. Faculty Relations Committee - Filling in for Ethan, Jenn told us that the Faculty Relations Committee had gotten two professors to act as liaisons between Council and the faculty. In addition the committee is working on a Code handbook for faculty. Sarah suggested they add an abstract in it.

V. Your Abstracts are Too Funny - Celeste informed Council that some members of the faculty and administration were concerned about the “whimsical themes” of abstracts, given the seriousness of the situations involved. Lucy noted that this had been a long-standing concern of some. Andrew agreed that sometimes people associate the traits of the fictional characters with the person described in the abstract. Ben thought we were all taking ourselves too seriously, and that people forget about the names about 5 seconds after they read the abstract. Sarah agreed, saying the touch of whimsy had no real adverse effects. Lucy noted, however, that our primary goal is too make the abstracts clear, and thus we shouldn’t get too involved in the themes.

Celeste was also concerned that Honor Council doesn’t always get the abstracts out within the 4 weeks mandated by the Code. Hannah suggested that future abstract writers write the abstract as the trial goes along to expedite the process. It was also suggested that we stop being so damn lazy.

VI. Exam Signs - Y’all will be seeing signs soon about the fact that we are not allowed to discuss with anyone the “form, degree of difficulty, or content” of our exams after we have the taken them. Look for some provocative signs that will excite and/or thrill you. Lucy also asked that we make signs reminding everyone that the best way to avoid an unintentional Honor Code violation is too always consult with your professors.

VII. - Meeting with the Dean - Council will be meeting with Dean Joe Tolliver and Marilou Allen in the next coming weeks, so if you have any concerns for them, find your friendly Honor Council member.

IV. Confidential Portion, Moment of Silence HC Minutes are not the opinion of anyone but me. Anyone else counting down the minutes we have left? As of this writing, 29,896 minutes to go. Tick . . .Tick . .