The foremost concern in enacting this program is the right to privacy of all students involved. Both for prudential and legal concerns — particularly under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act — this plan must be implemented with each student’s confidentiality in mind; however, the objective evidence of the trial can certainly be made public without violating the rights of those involved. Under federal law, the Honor Committee is neither allowed to release the names of anyone closely involved in the trial nor release information from which people could reasonably determine who was involved. Measures can certainly be taken to alleviate this concern, as specific names and details could be removed from the material evidence and transcript such that students’ confidentiality could be protected. Because the Honor Committee only deals with violations on examinations, the types of cases heard by the committee are generic enough that identifying involved parties in the absence of names would be difficult. To protect the identity of accused students, they should be given the right to redact their names as well.
The other objections to this policy mostly concern its effects on the Honor Committee itself. First, concerns have been raised about the permissibility of releasing the names of Honor Committee members who heard the case, but it seems reasonable that — at least during the questioning of witnesses — members ought to be held accountable for their actions. Though this policy may result in a decrease in the number of applicants to the Honor Committee, those applicants who would not want to be accountable for their actions are most likely not the people the student body would want representing them on the committee. In addition, Honor Committee members are already obligated to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a conflict of interest, so it is unlikely that releasing the names of Honor Committee members would influence how these members voted.
While the specific votes of each Honor Committee member might still be kept anonymous, it is important to release the vote count. Knowing the margin by which the student was convicted or acquitted would enable the student body to judge whether its own opinion is as clear-cut as that of the Honor Committee. Ultimately, this policy is meant to correct the lack of information surrounding Honor Committee trials and achieve a balance between students’ confidentiality and a clear understanding of how the Honor Code works today.
Amanda Tuninetti ’11, a peer representative for students accused of honor violations, recused herself from voting.
Read More
To understand America’s future, Princeton must look to Britain
Kenneth ChanThe future of America is mired in uncertainty. But if we want the closest thing to clairvoyance we can get, we must look to our friends across the pond — the British.
The future of America is mired in uncertainty. But if you want the closest thing to clairvoyance you can get, we must look to our friends across the pond — the British.
Princeton, it’s time to implement media literacy training
Chloe CresswellSocial media platforms have failed to curb the exponential rise of online disinformation. To counter this, institutions like Princeton must increase public resilience through mandated media literacy training for its students.
Social media platforms have failed to curb the exponential rise of online disinformation. To counter this, institutions like Princeton must increase public resilience through mandated media literacy training for its students.
It’s time for a civic education requirement at Princeton
Kenneth ChanIvy League graduates have lost the trust and confidence of the American people. Princeton should renew its commitment to democratic values through a new civic education requirement.
Ivy League graduates have lost the trust and confidence of the American people. Princeton should renew its commitment to democratic values through a new civic education requirement.
