Ever since its inception in 1883, the Honor Code has been distinguished by a single simple fact: It is completely student operated. This "movement of the students themselves," as Woodrow Wilson called it at the time, makes undergraduates responsible for all aspects of the honor discipline process. Honor Committee members, all of whom are students, must not only determine a final verdict in each case, but also ensure that the hearing process they use is fair to each accused student. Because they are peers of the accused, they bring a unique credibility, integrity and fairmindedness to the process.
The Opinion Board feels strongly that the system is well designed, and should continue to be operated entirely by students, without any outside interference.
The proposals recently offered by Catherine Farmer '03, and scheduled for a vote in the USG Senate on Sunday, have two parts. One would allow the Dean of the College rather than President Tilghman to hear appeals, and allow the Dean of Undergraduate Students rather than Tilghman to impose penalties. We do not think this change raises significant problems, if those closest to the process believe it would be advisable.
The real meat of Farmer's proposal is the other part. Under the current system, the Honor Committee investigators who decide to bring a case are the same ones who provide procedural advice to the accused. Farmer points out a real problem here — the accused student won't trust, and won't confide in, the investigators who decided to bring his case.
We think the best way to solve this problem would be to have a student serve as a neutral procedural advisor to the accused. Farmer's proposal, which would have an administrator be the procedural advisor, needlessly introduces administrative influence over Honor Committee proceedings. We feel strongly it should be rejected.
Farmer's proposal came from a working group of students and administrators that met regularly over the last 12 months. According to a USG leader familiar with the process, the idea of having an administrator serve as a "procedural advisor" during Honor Code proceedings originated with Dean Deignan, who expressed concern about the possibility that the University might be sued over a decision made by a student-only Honor Committee. This proposal, by adding an administrative presence, would inherently change the dynamic of Honor Code proceedings. It should be rejected. — The Daily Princetonian Opinion Board
Read More
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
What is a Princeton degree really for?
Joel IbabaoSo what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
So what, in the end, is a Princeton degree really for? I take a more moderate view: Students should prioritize earning potential — unless they feel irresistibly called to something else.
If there’s one survey you fill out this year, make it the Year End Assessment
Jerry ZhuThe University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.
The University cares about collecting good data — but it needs to centralize its efforts.