LETTER: Honor Council proposal for advisors to accused will not appear in elections but still merits consideration

---

To the editor:

In last week's Thresher ("More Honor Council members will help speed up trials," Feb. 16), we explained the two proposed constitutional changes that were to appear on the general election ballot. But instead of two proposals, there will only be one on the ballot.

The student body will vote on the proposal for an enlarged council.

After the Honor Council has drafted and approved a proposal, both Dean of Students Sarah Burnett and the Student Association Senate must approve of the change before the student body may vote on it.

Monday afternoon, Dean Burnett approved the proposal for an expanded council but did not approve the proposal for an advisor.

Although Dean Burnett favors having an advisor for the accused (and the idea for the position even originated in her office), she feels that Rice's legal team and other authorities should have a chance to examine the proposal first.

If the student body approved of the proposal and the administration did not, the university might be put in a difficult legal situation.

During the remainder of the semester, the Honor Council will present the advisor proposal to the necessary authorities and will also follow through on approaching Student Affairs administrators about being advisors.

The council envisions that the advisor's role would include: offering emotional support to an accused, viewing the evidence in the presence of the ombuds, holding private meetings between the advisor and accused, reviewing and proofreading the accused's opening and closing statements, suggesting potential witnesses or pertinent evidence and offering advice directly related to the accused's case.

In addition, the advisor would not be present during trials or hearings nor would they attend closed meetings of the council.

The advisor would be bound to the same rules of secrecy as the council and ombuds, and it would be the ultimate decision of the accused to determine which advice or support he or she would accept from the advisor.

In other words, an accused would not be able to appeal a council decision on the grounds of receiving bad advice.

The advisors would help fill a void for students who resist informing anyone they know of their involvement in a pending Honor Council hearing.

Creating a pool of advisors would provide someone that these students could talk to about their case and about the strain of an Honor Council investigation.

The advisor would also be familiar with procedure and could be of significantly more help to an accused than is an ombuds by virtue of the advisor's position outside the direct workings of the honor system.

The accused would not have to seek advice from a member of the trained student affairs administrative staff, but the opportunity would be there for any who wanted it.

If Rice's legal experts, along with Vice President for Student Affairs Zenaido Camacho and President Malcolm Gillis, approve of the idea and make recommendations about the limits of the position, the administrators who would like to be advisors will be oriented this summer.

By the beginning of the fall semester, accused students could solicit the advice of an advisor if they choose to. In this way, trained advisors would be available before the proposal was voted into the constitution.

Otherwise, if the change was immediately introduced into the constitution when no advisor could be provided at that time, the council would be in discord with the constitution. If the legal experts approved of the change, next year's council policy would resemble a one-year trial run for the advisor position before a constitutional amendment could again be presented to the student body at general elections.

Although it is disappointing that this year's student body will not be able to vote on the proposal as a constitutional amendment, the proposal will appear on next year's general election ballot, and the decision placed before the student body will be whether or not to permanently include the advisor role as a part of the honor system.

We regret any confusion this proposal may have caused during the last few weeks. We welcome your opinions on this issue or the expanded council proposal. There will be an open meeting this Sunday at 8 p.m. in the Kelley Lounge.

Constitutional Revisions Committee

Honor Council

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 23, 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 77005-1892, USA.