I don’t think I’m publically shaming anyone. If you’re referring to my frustration at the lack of Honor Council announcements, that is simply because the lack of announcements violates the HC’s charter. Personally, I don’t think those announcements are even helpful, but until that provision is removed from the charter, it is HC’s responsibility to make those announcements, or else it’s violating the charter.
If you think I’m publically shaming Lauren, I disagree. I think she made some arguments, and I made some refutations. I didn’t call anyone out, including Lauren, by name. I just felt there were some serious issues with Lauren’s logic and also some pertinent omissions, but I have nothing against Lauren as a person or a writer. I always try my best to follow the first rule of civilized debate, which is always attack the idea, never the person. My apologies if I did otherwise, but I don’t believe I did.
Regarding making announcements of good behavior, those announcements did happen for a time, both on stage and with Roman Compliments. I had nothing against those, although typically they were pretty silly. Still, I don’t feel that is an argument against making announcements about bad things. I think announcements about consequences attributed to bad behavior serves are a far greater deterrent than making announcements of positive things serves as a encouragement. Of course, that’s a point for debate, and I don’t really have any evidence to support my point, but it just feels that way to me.
I’m a little confused though if you’re referring to announcements as they are or completely open announcements as I suggested in which there is no confidentiality. Announcements as they are serve supposedly to create transparency and let people know stuff happens, but since I think everyone knows stuff happens in general and the announcements are so vague, I don’t think they’re helpful. Announcing all the details, or just removing confidentiality and making hearings open, would serve as a consequence on its own as well as a deterrent by making it more personal.
Regarding the something else going on, one of the tenants of the philosophy of HC is that all factors are considered. I wholeheartedly agree that understanding is necessary. This philosophy was intended to be one of the major differences between Disciplinary Committee and Honor Council. I think the HC has mostly embodied this philosophy, although there weren’t really any cases this semester that required too much in depth analysis of the surrounding factors (most cases are pretty cut and dry).
That’s an interesting question you pose about rulings by age. I hadn’t considered that before. Once we determine that a response from HC is warranted in a certain case, we first determine what if any education is necessary, and then consequences. We probably implicitly, if not explicitly, factor in the grade of the student when determining education. If a freshman plagiarizes, it might be because he/she didn’t know the rule (as you pointed out as an example) – then the education would be to speak with the teacher about what constitutes plagiarism. If a senior plagiarizes, he/she should probably know what it is by that point, meaning the aforementioned education wouldn’t be helpful, and also possibly leading to greater consequences.
Also regarding age, HC members, rightly or wrongly, always ask how a certain consequence will affect college admittance. Some people believe we shouldn’t care if a suspension or something affects college apps, while some people thing the effect on college is part of the consequence and therefore applicable. Regardless, it always comes up. And it particularly comes up for upperclassman, another case in which age/grade is implicitly considered.
Basically to sum up the bit about age, I’d say that education differs but consequences not as much. Also, if the suggested education is for him/her to meet with his/her advisor or a counselor, those meetings would probably differ in content and purpose depending on where the student is in high school. Similarly with consequences, the aftermath regarding discussions with parents, deans, and college counselors if applicable is very different by age.
So basically that’s what it is. Regarding what I think it should be, it’s really hard to say. As part of the philosophy that factors are considered, then developmental differences should be considered, although at the risk of going down the slippery slope that we stop holding freshmen responsible for their actions.
Nice article, Lauren. You presented a balanced viewpoint and shed light on an issue I don’t hear discussed a lot… this was well done.
Jules, I agree with many of your sentiments, but I can’t say I think it’s a good idea to publicly shame people. After all, no one makes announcements (except for once that I can remember) of students’ exceptionally good behavior, or great academic honesty… so we’ll just hear the negative. Also, I think poor choices are often the result of poor circumstances. When people falter, there’s generally something else going on. Does it make cheating or getting intoxicated right? No. But if we seek to judge our peers, we should first seek to understand them, and I honk publicly broadcasting someone’s worst moment is just unfair.
Also, I wonder if the HC makes different rulings for freshmen vs. older students. There’s a lot different developmentally between a 14 and an 18 year old.. are those differences acknowledged? Because to me, plagiarizing as a sophomore, junior, or senior is more serious than plagiarizing as a freshman… not that freshmen are incapable of making good choices, but that everyone’s coming from a different place in middle school… some newer students might not even know how to fulfill Latin’s requirements for academic honesty. Thoughts?
I would like to respond as both a member of the Honor Council and as a member of the Latin community, but of course the two cannot be separated.
“I personally feel that Honor Council has become less open with the community in the past year or so”
I agree with this statement. There have not been any announcements from Honor Council at gathering this semester (as far as I know). This matter troubles members of Honor Council and others alike. I do not have an explanation for why there has not been more communication, other than that it is not in the student HC-members purview to make gathering announcements without direction and permission.
Additionally, we have not had any of the monthly open HC forums as outlined in our charter. However, one cannot call the HC less open on account of this without being a fair bit hypocritical. To the best of my knowledge, only one student has ever attended one of these meetings since the very first one two years ago, and that student was Will Nuelle reporting for “the Forum.” So even when the HC was having these opportunities to include members of the student body, no one came. That is no excuse however for why we have not held these open meetings this semester, and I do not have a satisfactory explanation for why we have not.
“While it is the students’ responsibility to refrain from gossiping over Honor Council cases, we must be realistic. In a school this small, it seems impossible for the Honor Council to be more secretive than it is currently.”
“Those involved will tell their friends, and regardless of the initial desire of a student, most people will find out.”
I would like to make clear that there are two primary ways in which information leaks out of the honor council: by the accused student(s) and/or by members of the Honor Council itself. Those are two very different things.
Members of the HC are sworn to secrecy. There have been a few instances of information getting out, and those have been dealt with appropriately. However, by and large, members of the HC have kept their duty to remain silent on all matters, even with their friends, teachers, and family, despite it being a difficult charge at times.
The HC has no control over whether the student(s) brought before the HC discloses the details of his/her incident and/or hearing. The reason HC hearings are kept secret is to protect the confidentiality of the accused student, in part to protect the student in cases where a response from HC is not warranted. If the student wants to tell his/her friends about the incident or hearing, then that is their right. And we cannot use the fact that a student tells one or more people who are not bound by confidentially and from there the information spreads as an argument against the Honor Council.
“There are only two solutions: either the Honor Council becomes more anonymous and the information from meetings isn’t as openly discussed, or they commit to more transparency and consistent updates at gathering.”
With a few unfortunate exceptions, I can guarantee information from meetings (aka hearings) is not under any circumstances openly discussed by members of the Honor Council. As I previously said, any discussion is coming directly from the only participant in a HC hearing not bound by confidentiality: the accused student him/herself. The HC cannot control discussion coming from the student. In fact, in my opinion, if the student is so willing to share the intimate details of his/her hearing, why is the discussion an issue at all. If the student didn’t want to share, than he/she should not tell anyone, and the HC will follow it’s confidentiality requirement, and there will be no discussion. If there is discussion on account of a leak from within HC, that matter will be dealt with strictly by the HC as has occurred previously.
The HC’s charter mandates monthly updates at gathering, While I have missed a few gatherings this semester, I have not been aware of any monthly HC updates this semester. If true, that is in violation of the charter. Again, I have no excuse for why there have not been more or any updates.
A related but distinctly different matter is the contents of those updates. In my opinion, the updates are so vague as to not be useful. However, there is concern by parents, administrators, and some students and faculty that making the updates any less vague would destroy confidentiality.
Some people, included a respected faculty member as well as myself believe that there should be no confidentiality. Rather, the lack of confidentiality acts as a deterrent. In a recent 60 Minutes article on the Scottish Isles, it is noted that crime is at next to zero because if you commit a crime in such a small community, everyone will know about it and you will be defined by your crime indefinitely. Let Latin’s small and talkative community act productively. Yes, it will be awkward the first few times a violation is announced in front of everything. But I am confident that within a semester, instances of cheating and inappropriate behavior will decrease noticeably. I would like to note that just because I and some others believe there should be less or no confidentiality does not mean that we intend to or ever have broken the confidentiality requirements in place. Less confidentiality is just our idea for the future.
“Aside from the issue of the Honor Council’s openness, or lack thereof, many students aren’t aware of how decisions are made.”
The process of an Honor Council hearing is clearly laid out in the charter. There have also been numerous mock hearings, including one each of the last two school years to the best of my knowledge. Additionally, more information can be garnered by attending the monthly open meetings, and although I cannot excuse why there have not been any of those this semester, I can retort again by saying no one, despite their concern for how decisions are made, have not attended any of the mediums through which the HC hopes to increase transparency and knowledge of the body, its processes, and its mission.
“If the Honor Council comes to an agreement about a certain case, Mr. Dunn or Mr. Graf has the power to overrule their decision if they disagree.”
As far as I know, this was also the case with the Disciplinary Committee (a somewhat similar body that preceded the HC). An alternative to the HC is that Mr. Dunn and/or Mr. Graf make the decisions themselves without any input from anyone else, or at least without student input via the HC. In some people’s opinion, including my own, this method would be the best way to deal with infractions.
The HC is really just a panel of students and teachers acting as trusted advisers from Mr. Dunn and Mr. Graf. While I have not seen any statistics regarding how often the HC’s chosen consequences are upheld by the administration, I can tell you basically sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren’t. I’m sorry I cannot be more specific, as this information is not even shared with the HC typically, but these stats may be released in the near future (that has been my request).
One of the most established Honor Councils in the world is that at Haverford College. It has been, both directly and indirectly, a model for numerous HCs. As far as I know, Haverford’s HC is binding in their decisions. If they expel someone, that person is expelled. If they make someone retake a class, so be it. And so on and so forth. So why doesn’t Latin do the same? Well, for one, some people, including a number of other students with whom I’ve discussed the matter, do not believe we students can be trusted to make such binding decisions. Others, such as myself, recognize that the HC’s processes themselves are quite flawed as we often do not have sufficient time to thoroughly discuss potential violations and their requisite consequences. On a number of occasions, I have felt rushed during the hearings. This clearly is not how you want binding suspensions and expulsions being handed out. Haverford routinely discusses cases for four or more hours. I and limited numbers of other HC members would be more than willing to do the same. But logistically, such a system would be unsustainable and impractical. Therefore, we happily recognize ourselves as a voice of the people in an advisory roll, even if our decisions are not always upheld, for better or for worse, by the administration.
Thanks for reading if you made it this far. I have had serious doubts about the Honor Council from the beginning. Some of those doubts have been confirmed. Some of those doubts have been disproved. But most still linger, although I will happily discuss them with fellow HC members, teachers, and anyone who wants to listen. So why did I run for and join the Honor Council? Well, the HC was going to happen with or without me. So I figured that perhaps if I could make even a modicum of change from the inside, than that was better than complaining about it from the outside. I’m glad I made such a decision, and while the jury is most certainly still out on the HC and I am not even confident enough to say it’s better than nothing, there have been and will continue to be improvements until the HC or whatever may replace it is something of which everyone can be happy and proud.
jreiner • May 20, 2015 at 6:58 pm
I don’t think I’m publically shaming anyone. If you’re referring to my frustration at the lack of Honor Council announcements, that is simply because the lack of announcements violates the HC’s charter. Personally, I don’t think those announcements are even helpful, but until that provision is removed from the charter, it is HC’s responsibility to make those announcements, or else it’s violating the charter.
If you think I’m publically shaming Lauren, I disagree. I think she made some arguments, and I made some refutations. I didn’t call anyone out, including Lauren, by name. I just felt there were some serious issues with Lauren’s logic and also some pertinent omissions, but I have nothing against Lauren as a person or a writer. I always try my best to follow the first rule of civilized debate, which is always attack the idea, never the person. My apologies if I did otherwise, but I don’t believe I did.
Regarding making announcements of good behavior, those announcements did happen for a time, both on stage and with Roman Compliments. I had nothing against those, although typically they were pretty silly. Still, I don’t feel that is an argument against making announcements about bad things. I think announcements about consequences attributed to bad behavior serves are a far greater deterrent than making announcements of positive things serves as a encouragement. Of course, that’s a point for debate, and I don’t really have any evidence to support my point, but it just feels that way to me.
I’m a little confused though if you’re referring to announcements as they are or completely open announcements as I suggested in which there is no confidentiality. Announcements as they are serve supposedly to create transparency and let people know stuff happens, but since I think everyone knows stuff happens in general and the announcements are so vague, I don’t think they’re helpful. Announcing all the details, or just removing confidentiality and making hearings open, would serve as a consequence on its own as well as a deterrent by making it more personal.
Regarding the something else going on, one of the tenants of the philosophy of HC is that all factors are considered. I wholeheartedly agree that understanding is necessary. This philosophy was intended to be one of the major differences between Disciplinary Committee and Honor Council. I think the HC has mostly embodied this philosophy, although there weren’t really any cases this semester that required too much in depth analysis of the surrounding factors (most cases are pretty cut and dry).
That’s an interesting question you pose about rulings by age. I hadn’t considered that before. Once we determine that a response from HC is warranted in a certain case, we first determine what if any education is necessary, and then consequences. We probably implicitly, if not explicitly, factor in the grade of the student when determining education. If a freshman plagiarizes, it might be because he/she didn’t know the rule (as you pointed out as an example) – then the education would be to speak with the teacher about what constitutes plagiarism. If a senior plagiarizes, he/she should probably know what it is by that point, meaning the aforementioned education wouldn’t be helpful, and also possibly leading to greater consequences.
Also regarding age, HC members, rightly or wrongly, always ask how a certain consequence will affect college admittance. Some people believe we shouldn’t care if a suspension or something affects college apps, while some people thing the effect on college is part of the consequence and therefore applicable. Regardless, it always comes up. And it particularly comes up for upperclassman, another case in which age/grade is implicitly considered.
Basically to sum up the bit about age, I’d say that education differs but consequences not as much. Also, if the suggested education is for him/her to meet with his/her advisor or a counselor, those meetings would probably differ in content and purpose depending on where the student is in high school. Similarly with consequences, the aftermath regarding discussions with parents, deans, and college counselors if applicable is very different by age.
So basically that’s what it is. Regarding what I think it should be, it’s really hard to say. As part of the philosophy that factors are considered, then developmental differences should be considered, although at the risk of going down the slippery slope that we stop holding freshmen responsible for their actions.
mporzenh • May 20, 2015 at 5:36 pm
Nice article, Lauren. You presented a balanced viewpoint and shed light on an issue I don’t hear discussed a lot… this was well done.
Jules, I agree with many of your sentiments, but I can’t say I think it’s a good idea to publicly shame people. After all, no one makes announcements (except for once that I can remember) of students’ exceptionally good behavior, or great academic honesty… so we’ll just hear the negative. Also, I think poor choices are often the result of poor circumstances. When people falter, there’s generally something else going on. Does it make cheating or getting intoxicated right? No. But if we seek to judge our peers, we should first seek to understand them, and I honk publicly broadcasting someone’s worst moment is just unfair.
Also, I wonder if the HC makes different rulings for freshmen vs. older students. There’s a lot different developmentally between a 14 and an 18 year old.. are those differences acknowledged? Because to me, plagiarizing as a sophomore, junior, or senior is more serious than plagiarizing as a freshman… not that freshmen are incapable of making good choices, but that everyone’s coming from a different place in middle school… some newer students might not even know how to fulfill Latin’s requirements for academic honesty. Thoughts?
jreiner • May 17, 2015 at 11:08 pm
I would like to respond as both a member of the Honor Council and as a member of the Latin community, but of course the two cannot be separated.
“I personally feel that Honor Council has become less open with the community in the past year or so”
I agree with this statement. There have not been any announcements from Honor Council at gathering this semester (as far as I know). This matter troubles members of Honor Council and others alike. I do not have an explanation for why there has not been more communication, other than that it is not in the student HC-members purview to make gathering announcements without direction and permission.
Additionally, we have not had any of the monthly open HC forums as outlined in our charter. However, one cannot call the HC less open on account of this without being a fair bit hypocritical. To the best of my knowledge, only one student has ever attended one of these meetings since the very first one two years ago, and that student was Will Nuelle reporting for “the Forum.” So even when the HC was having these opportunities to include members of the student body, no one came. That is no excuse however for why we have not held these open meetings this semester, and I do not have a satisfactory explanation for why we have not.
“While it is the students’ responsibility to refrain from gossiping over Honor Council cases, we must be realistic. In a school this small, it seems impossible for the Honor Council to be more secretive than it is currently.”
“Those involved will tell their friends, and regardless of the initial desire of a student, most people will find out.”
I would like to make clear that there are two primary ways in which information leaks out of the honor council: by the accused student(s) and/or by members of the Honor Council itself. Those are two very different things.
Members of the HC are sworn to secrecy. There have been a few instances of information getting out, and those have been dealt with appropriately. However, by and large, members of the HC have kept their duty to remain silent on all matters, even with their friends, teachers, and family, despite it being a difficult charge at times.
The HC has no control over whether the student(s) brought before the HC discloses the details of his/her incident and/or hearing. The reason HC hearings are kept secret is to protect the confidentiality of the accused student, in part to protect the student in cases where a response from HC is not warranted. If the student wants to tell his/her friends about the incident or hearing, then that is their right. And we cannot use the fact that a student tells one or more people who are not bound by confidentially and from there the information spreads as an argument against the Honor Council.
“There are only two solutions: either the Honor Council becomes more anonymous and the information from meetings isn’t as openly discussed, or they commit to more transparency and consistent updates at gathering.”
With a few unfortunate exceptions, I can guarantee information from meetings (aka hearings) is not under any circumstances openly discussed by members of the Honor Council. As I previously said, any discussion is coming directly from the only participant in a HC hearing not bound by confidentiality: the accused student him/herself. The HC cannot control discussion coming from the student. In fact, in my opinion, if the student is so willing to share the intimate details of his/her hearing, why is the discussion an issue at all. If the student didn’t want to share, than he/she should not tell anyone, and the HC will follow it’s confidentiality requirement, and there will be no discussion. If there is discussion on account of a leak from within HC, that matter will be dealt with strictly by the HC as has occurred previously.
The HC’s charter mandates monthly updates at gathering, While I have missed a few gatherings this semester, I have not been aware of any monthly HC updates this semester. If true, that is in violation of the charter. Again, I have no excuse for why there have not been more or any updates.
A related but distinctly different matter is the contents of those updates. In my opinion, the updates are so vague as to not be useful. However, there is concern by parents, administrators, and some students and faculty that making the updates any less vague would destroy confidentiality.
Some people, included a respected faculty member as well as myself believe that there should be no confidentiality. Rather, the lack of confidentiality acts as a deterrent. In a recent 60 Minutes article on the Scottish Isles, it is noted that crime is at next to zero because if you commit a crime in such a small community, everyone will know about it and you will be defined by your crime indefinitely. Let Latin’s small and talkative community act productively. Yes, it will be awkward the first few times a violation is announced in front of everything. But I am confident that within a semester, instances of cheating and inappropriate behavior will decrease noticeably. I would like to note that just because I and some others believe there should be less or no confidentiality does not mean that we intend to or ever have broken the confidentiality requirements in place. Less confidentiality is just our idea for the future.
“Aside from the issue of the Honor Council’s openness, or lack thereof, many students aren’t aware of how decisions are made.”
The process of an Honor Council hearing is clearly laid out in the charter. There have also been numerous mock hearings, including one each of the last two school years to the best of my knowledge. Additionally, more information can be garnered by attending the monthly open meetings, and although I cannot excuse why there have not been any of those this semester, I can retort again by saying no one, despite their concern for how decisions are made, have not attended any of the mediums through which the HC hopes to increase transparency and knowledge of the body, its processes, and its mission.
“If the Honor Council comes to an agreement about a certain case, Mr. Dunn or Mr. Graf has the power to overrule their decision if they disagree.”
As far as I know, this was also the case with the Disciplinary Committee (a somewhat similar body that preceded the HC). An alternative to the HC is that Mr. Dunn and/or Mr. Graf make the decisions themselves without any input from anyone else, or at least without student input via the HC. In some people’s opinion, including my own, this method would be the best way to deal with infractions.
The HC is really just a panel of students and teachers acting as trusted advisers from Mr. Dunn and Mr. Graf. While I have not seen any statistics regarding how often the HC’s chosen consequences are upheld by the administration, I can tell you basically sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren’t. I’m sorry I cannot be more specific, as this information is not even shared with the HC typically, but these stats may be released in the near future (that has been my request).
One of the most established Honor Councils in the world is that at Haverford College. It has been, both directly and indirectly, a model for numerous HCs. As far as I know, Haverford’s HC is binding in their decisions. If they expel someone, that person is expelled. If they make someone retake a class, so be it. And so on and so forth. So why doesn’t Latin do the same? Well, for one, some people, including a number of other students with whom I’ve discussed the matter, do not believe we students can be trusted to make such binding decisions. Others, such as myself, recognize that the HC’s processes themselves are quite flawed as we often do not have sufficient time to thoroughly discuss potential violations and their requisite consequences. On a number of occasions, I have felt rushed during the hearings. This clearly is not how you want binding suspensions and expulsions being handed out. Haverford routinely discusses cases for four or more hours. I and limited numbers of other HC members would be more than willing to do the same. But logistically, such a system would be unsustainable and impractical. Therefore, we happily recognize ourselves as a voice of the people in an advisory roll, even if our decisions are not always upheld, for better or for worse, by the administration.
Thanks for reading if you made it this far. I have had serious doubts about the Honor Council from the beginning. Some of those doubts have been confirmed. Some of those doubts have been disproved. But most still linger, although I will happily discuss them with fellow HC members, teachers, and anyone who wants to listen. So why did I run for and join the Honor Council? Well, the HC was going to happen with or without me. So I figured that perhaps if I could make even a modicum of change from the inside, than that was better than complaining about it from the outside. I’m glad I made such a decision, and while the jury is most certainly still out on the HC and I am not even confident enough to say it’s better than nothing, there have been and will continue to be improvements until the HC or whatever may replace it is something of which everyone can be happy and proud.