Under current procedures, two members of the Honor Committee investigate an alleged infraction while a quorum of the remaining members of the committee judge whether the accused student is guilty. Committee members take turns fulfilling both duties, meaning that an investigator in one case will inevitably have served alongside a judge in another case. An analogous system is not in place for the peer representatives who advocate for the accused: Honor Committee members are forbidden from serving as peer representatives.
While the investigator is meant to be a mere fact-finder, the role of presenting evidence of an alleged infraction — the task with which investigators are charged — is necessarily adversarial. In contrast, committee members judging the guilt of the accused are asked to remain impartial. Requiring the same individuals to serve in both capacities — one adversarial and one impartial — is inappropriate and could result in committee members conflating the two roles. Given that Honor Committee members have served on the same committee as investigators in past cases, it is possible that the statements of these investigators might be given more credence than those of accused students or peer representatives. This arrangement creates the potential for bias.
In order to reduce any perceived bias that may arise under the current system, there should be a group of dedicated investigators, none of whom is allowed to serve on the Honor Committee. This change would increase the legitimacy of the committee and give accused students one less reason to question the committee’s findings. There might be concerns that implementing such a system would be problematic since it could lead to a shortage of willing and able investigators to meet the demand for investigations. Members of the Honor Committee currently take turns as investigators because investigations are quite time-consuming and can be a laborious task to undertake. But given the number of students already willing to serve on the Honor Committee or as peer representatives, there is no reason to believe that there would not be enough students able and willing to fill this new role.
The current system of dealing with potential Honor Code violations leaves room for unintended bias among Honor Committee members toward investigators. For the same reason that the U.S. criminal justice system dictates that a prosecutor may not also serve as a judge, the same individual should not be allowed to serve as both an investigator and an Honor Committee member. While this change would not render the system perfect, it would correct one of its critical shortcomings.
Amanda Tuninetti ’11, a peer representative for students accused of Honor Code violations, recused herself from discussion and voting on this editorial.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
