The Faculty Council should adopt only some of the proposed changes to UNC’s student-led honor system. While not all of the proposed changes are necessary, a couple of the proposals are crucial to improving the effectiveness of the honor system.
The beneficial suggestions include reducing the burden of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “clear and convincing evidence,” making the first offense usual sanction more flexible and implementing an instructor/student resolution process.
However, the proposal to include faculty on honor panels for academic cases with pleas of “not guilty” shouldn’t be adopted.
Granting faculty the right to sit on not guilty academic cases contradicts the Honor Court’s fundamental principle of student self-governance. Allowing faculty to try cases in a student-run court tarnishes more than 100 years of history and tradition.
The high standard of proof has presented various problems for the Honor Court. The nature of academic fraud is such that determining guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” is often unreasonably difficult. Using a lower burden of proof will allow the Honor Court to better hold students accountable.
Implementing a mediation strategy would create a midway process where faculty members can participate more, while still allowing a sense of student autonomy. Mediation agreements would serve as a way to encourage more faculty members to report to the underutilized Honor Court.
