Student representatives, UNC administration reflect on future Honor System changes

After over 100 years of student leadership, the University announced last week that UNC's Honor System plans to become professional staff-led. 

UNC is one of only two U.S. universities — alongside Washington and Lee University — to use a student-led Honor System. UNC will switch leadership systems beginning Aug. 12, excluding cases that are not resolved before that date, which will be continued with the current system.

A July 17 email from Provost Chris Clemens and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Amy Johnson stated that there have been concerns and conversations in recent years surrounding student adjudicator workloads, the timeframe of cases and an increasingly complex legal landscape for students.

The email stated that the new model would include University staff guiding hearings and related processes to ensure consistency across cases and to reduce the burden on student adjudicators. An advisory board — made up of students, faculty and staff — would meet to provide ongoing counsel and feedback to Student Affairs and Student Conduct teams.

"Hearing boards are considered a best practice and are among the most common student conduct models across the country," Beth Keith — associate vice chancellor of the Office of University Communications — wrote in an email to The Daily Tar Heel. "Students will continue to play active roles in the new process and on an advisory committee inclusive of students will continue to inform policies and procedures."

Leaders from across the University’s Honor System — consisting of the undergraduate attorney general, undergraduate Honor Court chair, graduate attorney general, graduate Honor Court chair and Honor System outreach coordinator — released a statement to address the changes, saying that they wanted to ensure transparency with the UNC community.

The statement said that the Honor System was notified less than 24 hours before the July 17 campus-wide email.

Student Body President Jaleah Taylor said that she was “really caught off guard” by the changes, saying that she only found out two days before the announcement was made.

“I think it's really disheartening that the University had been working on this for over a whole year and they didn't include student voices in Student Conduct processes," Taylor said. "I think it really just takes away from the legacy that UNC has built."

The branch leaders wrote that if the administration had communicated their want to alter the Student Conduct process, that they would have engaged in a “good-faith dialogue” to discuss any changes.

A Frequently Asked Questions document linked to the July 17 email stated that the University’s student conduct policies are created through the chancellor’s authority.

The statement from branch leaders also wrote that every student conduct system has strengths and weaknesses. Since the beginning of their terms, leaders have worked to address flaws while preserving strengths. It stated that a key strength of the student-led system was the right to a student defense counsel, writing that the Office of the Attorney General provided students going through the Honor System with trained student counsels as advocates before the Honor Court.

“Given the stigma surrounding academic dishonesty or conduct violations, many accused students are uncomfortable sharing their narratives with administrators or professors,” the statement read. “Rather, they preferred a peer who would provide honest guidance and understanding. Such is the value of a student-led Honor System.”

Johnson said that she was “incredibly appreciative” of the role that students involved in the Honor System play.

“[We] are extremely interested in making sure that our long tradition of student governance continues and that there's a leadership opportunity for students here,” Johnson said.

Jonathan Sauls, senior associate vice chancellor of Student Success and Administration, wrote in a statement to The DTH that although the details of the future System are not yet finalized, there will be robust opportunities for student participation.

The branch leaders wrote that the new System, as they understood it, would remove student defense counsels, causing students to rely on attorneys or non-attorney advocates. They wrote that they think this will disproportionately harms low-income students.”

Johnson said that in the updated hearing board model, students would have advisers that could be students, faculty or staff.

“Students would represent themselves, but they would continue to have advisers in this process who can support them, help guide them through the protocols and procedures and wouldn't represent their case, but would be with them for support and counsel in the process,” she said.

Johnson said that the University was actively consulting stakeholder groups as plans were still being developed.

“Student leaders on the Honor Court process, to be fair, I don’t think they would tell you that it was a burden. They take this job very seriously. They're well trained, they're smart, they're some of our strongest leaders and they're very proud of the work that they do,” Johnson said.

Johnson said that she thought students involved in the Honor System would acknowledge that their job had become much tougher than students involved in the System 30-40 years ago. She said that they had most directly heard from students who had gone through the process, saying it was extremely difficult.

The UNC Undergraduate Senate passed a resolution surrounding the July 17 announcement, saying that it was “the sense of the Senate and the position of the Undergraduate Student Body that the administration of student conduct should remain principally administered by students.”

The resolution said that the Senate and Undergraduate Student Body needed further deliberation for the “drastic change,” asking Roberts to delay alterations to the system until the 2025-26 academic year. The resolution added that Johnson should provide a full and transparent account of the policy, as well as receive criticism from student leaders about the topic.

One student leader involved in the Honor System said that the plan, as it is now, will be refined, saying that the University has been receptive to feedback.

“I know all of those on the Honor System leadership are open to meeting more with [the] administration and trying to make compromises that will work,” the source said.  

In their statement, branch leaders said that they “more than willingly” provided their time and effort to the system because they said they knew they were making a positive impact on students and the University.

“The role was never a burden,” leaders wrote. “Rather, it was a deep honor that we carried with conscience and diligence.”

@a_nanyabusiness

@dailytarheel | university@dailytarheel.com