Honor code postponed again

Hilary Ingoldsby

Proposed revisions to the Student Code were once again not voted on Monday at Utah State University’s Faculty Senate meeting.

Changes to the code were first presented by ASUSU Academic Vice President Andy Haws at January’s meeting. The vote was postponed at that time due to e-mail glitches which made the document sent out hard to understand. This time the faculty had concerns about the changes themselves that kept the vote from happening.

Bonnie Glass-Coffin, anthropology professor, was first and foremost to voice her concerns about the proposed Honor Code that Haws said is designed to collaborate students and faculty in dealing with academic and non-academic problems on campus. The new Honor Code would rename a few articles in the Student Code and list them as Honor Code violations as well as set up an Honor Board, made up of faculty and students, that cases of academic dishonesty or other problems could be sent to.

Glass-Coffin, and others who voiced their opinions, are uncomfortable with academic and non-academic problems being handled in the same way by the same group of people. Glass-Coffin also said she is more comfortable with cases of academic dishonesty going up the academic chain to department head, dean, provost and president as they do now.

The Web site www.academicintegrity.org is where Haws said he got the idea for the Honor Code after reading about other university successes with such programs. Glass-Coffin however said she also looked at the site and that out of the 86 universities listed, only 19 had Honor Codes like the one proposed. Out of those 19, only three of the schools were public institutions.

“My fear is that we’re moving toward being more like a private or religious institution rather than public and I have real issues, diversity issues, with that,” Glass-Coffin said.

Haws maintains that Honor Codes are proving to be successful at universities all over the country, and the proposed changes to the USU Student Code will clarify the disciplinary process as well as make it a simpler process while empowering students. Haws said research shows students are stricter on their peers than faculty are. Haws also feels there need to be more options when punishing students for violations.

One such penalty which could be administered by the Honor Board for academic dishonesty aside from the standard grade adjustment, would be placing a mark on the transcript of the student caught cheating which would indicate, an Honor Code violation and would stay on the students transcript for one year. Some faculty said they were worried about this possibility for seniors who are graduating and won’t be able to get a new transcript. Haws said seniors would have the option to postpone graduation, re-apply and get a new transcript.

“It’s a serious designation, but so is cheating,” Haws said.

The vote on the code has been postponed to the senate meeting next month to give the faculty more time to think about the changes.

“I believe we have been very responsive to any faculty concerns,” Vice President for Student Services Pat Terrell said. “A few years ago the faculty was very concerned about classroom civility and how to deal with that, so we’ve been doing things to help that area.”

At the meeting, the English department also presented a proposal for a new doctorate program called the Theory and Practice of Professional Communication. Everardo Martinez, Multicultural Student Services director, also asked for more faculty involvement in multicultural activities and a possible faculty steering committee to look at multicultural services and needs.