Two months ago, it was his survey that showed the faculty’s stunning disregard of the honor system. But on Friday, it was sociology professor Andrew Perrin’s words that attested to just how little ground faculty have to stand on in the ongoing review of the student-run Honor Court.
At Friday’s Faculty Council meeting, Perrin presented anecdotal evidence that proved more disturbing than his survey and its empirical finding that a third of faculty might or might not report an infraction to the honor system. “We know of department (chairmen) who specifically discourage faculty from going to the court,” he said.
Perrin didn’t follow up with appropriate chairmen to verify this claim. Instead, he drew upon conversations with professors — especially ones without tenure — who said their department chairman advised them to take Honor Code infractions into their own hands. In an interview Tuesday, Perrin said the reasoning behind this recommendation was to spare professors from a drawn-out hearing process and from a loss of popularity with students.
This rationale is concerning on several levels. Most disturbingly, it indicates that a policy of foregoing the established judicial process is carried out, in some departments, on a systemic rather than sporadic basis. Instead of rogue faculty taking matters into their own hands, it indicates that some chairmen are not only accepting but advocating for an arbitrary system of justice in which punishment is levied without due process and at the whim of an individual professor.
If faculty want more of a presence within the honor system, they should start by respecting student self-governance, not tearing it down. Faculty must put an end to being part of the problem before trying to be the solution. Department chairmen should lead the way by example.
