COLUMN: Give Honor Council proposals a fair chance

---

by Jay Fundling

---

LAST YEAR I ran for the Honor Council thinking it was a straightforward job and that the current members were doing that job poorly. I was wrong on both accounts.

I found a job that nobody enjoys. Ever.

In every case, we have to face how much we affect someone's life. Whether we suspend someone from school or not, we leave hating that we had to make such an important decision.

But it wasn't the sympathy that really impressed me about the Honor Council. It was the intelligence and effort put into every trial.

The council deliberates for several hours at every trial and explores every aspect.

At the end, everyone must have a logical reason for casting their vote; no one is allowed to be "pretty sure" someone is guilty.

Unfortunately, intelligence and good public relations don't go hand in hand, and the council has not done a good job of presenting itself in recent years.

Two and three years ago, the council put before the student body a series of unpopular proposals. For example, the council wanted to remove the clause that allows a student to withdraw from the university for two semesters as an alternative to facing trial.

The students voted them down, but the damage to the council's reputation had been done.

As a consequence, last year when the council put forth a fairly innocuous proposal, many people thought that if the Honor Council wanted it, it must be bad.

This year I would like everyone to remember that Steve Hackney and Brad Monton aren't here anymore. Whatever negative feelings you have had for the council in the past, realize that we are a different group of people.

If you want to form an opinion of the Honor Council, I suggest you read abstracts of the cases this year and make your decisions from those.

In the next few months we will be proposing changes to the honor system. We will be writing letters to the Thresher and holding open meetings to encourage debate on these issues.

I encourage you to talk to a council member about the proposals and vote based on an understanding of the situation. While that takes more effort than voting "no" for everything we propose, it will benefit you more.

In return, we will try to earn your support. We realize that the honor system belongs to the whole student body, not just the council.

We will keep this in mind when making decisions in both trials and policy.

We don't want to violate our own constitution; we don't want to get rid of the withdrawal clause; and we don't think all athletes are cheaters.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the January 26, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.