University Star

The rules regarding the Honor Code Council have been undergoing revisions for about a year, but a university official said a revamped version of the policy is not far away.

David Wiley, council chair, said the new policy guidelines would be ready to present to University President Denise Trauth and Provost Perry Moore for approval “within days or weeks.”

The Honor Code Council provides students a way to appeal accusations of plagiarism and cheating. The new revisions narrow the duties of the council into two parts. The revisions give members authority to review potential evidence of academic dishonesty and determine the fairness of punishment.

“Let’s say, for example, a student forgets to put quotation marks around a quote in a paper, and a faculty member wants to give the student an F in the course,” Wiley said. “We may say, ‘Yes, there is evidence of that, but it is likely mere oversight, and we think the student should get an F on the paper or reduction of grade, but not an F in the course.’”

Wiley said the recommendations are made to the dean of the respective college in which the alleged cheating took place. The dean has the final say.

Problems with the original Honor Code do not end with ambiguity.

Wiley has difficulty finding the appropriate number of students and staff to serve on the council. There are currently seven faculty members and seven students trained to do the job. Three of each are needed in order to hold a hearing. The new rules would increase the number of trained staff and students to 14 of each.

Wiley has plans to inform new students of the Honor Code Council’s review process during Paws Previews. The review will include educating faculty members on what they and their students can do under the rules. An overall lack of understanding about the council’s review process is another limitation, he said. 

“A lot of faculty members unknowingly explain it to students incorrectly, and that’s where a lot of my problems come in,” Wiley said. “We have to undo the damage.”

Faculty members are to confront students with accusations of cheating in a private meeting under current Honor Code Council rules. Senators at their Wednesday meeting said the rules need a provision for the safety of faculty members or students, should either party become aggressive during a private conference.

Debra Feakes, Faculty Senate chair, is one supporter of such a change.

“I think there needs to be a provision, but not everybody agrees with that, obviously,” Feakes said.

Wiley said the committee did not address the safety issue on purpose. The rules do not prevent either party from bringing a witness to the meeting.

 “If you start being prospective like that, you’re going to leave something out, and if you leave something out, there’s your first lawsuit,” Wiley said. “I’ve been chair for a year, and I’ve had no complaints from students about faculty members trying to intimidate them, or from faculty members fearing for their safety. We generally try to plan for the most likely scenario rather than the least likely.”

Tommy Luna, ASG vice president, said the revisions are necessary, calling the old version’s language vague and open to interpretation. He and ASG president Chris Covo will give their opinions on the latest version of the rules once the new revisions are complete.  

“It’s all for the servitude of the student body, and we want to make sure the policies we set forth are understandable,” Luna said.