Article XII of Honor Code does more harm than help

By Ted Wieber     2/12/09 6:00pm

Last year, nine Rice students got away with sidestepping the Honor Code. Even after being officially confronted with the accusation against them, these students faced no formal hearing and had no mention on their records, due to the allowances of the Honor Code's Article XII - known to many as the "loophole" clause. On the Spring Election ballot next week, Rice students will have the chance to make our Honor System significantly more fair: The amendment to Article XII must pass! What is Article XII? In a nutshell, it allows a student faced with an Honor Code accusation to voluntarily withdraw from Rice for two semesters and, by doing so, to bypass the Honor Council process and have all charges against them dropped when they return. The plain truth is that Article XII harms more Rice students than it helps and undermines the fairness of the Honor System we have all agreed to abide by.

Article XII harms the innocent and exonerates the guilty. Sadly, I have witnessed too many students who choose to withdraw (and thus self-administer the Honor Council's maximum penalty) who would have received a lenient penalty - or even no penalty - had they proceeded with an Honor Council Hearing. And frustratingly, I have also encountered too many clearly guilty students who get off with a clean record and the chance to use their time away from Rice to study abroad or even earn income by working at a job or internship. For these guilty students, time that should have been punishment becomes productive and consequence-free.

A general fear of the Honor Council is perhaps partly to blame for the heavy use of Article XII. For a student organization that zealously protects the privacy of the accused, the fear of facing the unknown is understandable. However, it is important to keep in mind that our Honor System - founded in 1916 and reevaluated every year since - is a working system. No system is ever perfect, but after more than 90 years of implementation and revision, students should have confidence that any serious kinks have been worked out.

---

---

What about the other common fear of "innocent men on death row" or, in this case, innocent students being unjustly convicted by the Honor Council? Well, in the rare event that this would happen after the several hours that the Honor Council devotes to each case, there are two additional rounds of appeals: first to the Assistant Dean of Judicial Programs Donald Ostdiek and then to President David Leebron, ultimately providing three potential levels of institutional evaluation. While facing the Honor Council can be stressful for an accused student, whether innocent or guilty, he or she should be confident that the truth will prevail.

Some would now argue that despite the Honor Council's time-tested procedures and the multiple levels of appeals available to students found in violation of the Honor Code, those who are accused should still have the ability to withdraw and face no consequences. They argue that two semesters of self-administered "suspension" is sufficient enough punishment for the crime. This sounds reasonable, but the problem is that this feel-good conclusion excludes the crucial need for fairness and consistency in a judicial process like the Honor System. The entire point of having a centralized Honor Code and Honor Council is to ensure that all accusations of academic dishonesty are dealt with in a consistent, university-wide manner. Allowing students to haphazardly bypass such a system undermines the consistency of judicial evaluation that our Honor System seeks to create.

Earning a Rice degree is a privilege, not a right, and no student who has cheapened his or her achievement with academic dishonesty should have the same clean record as those who have toiled to succeed here with full honor and integrity. While the guilty parties should not be shunned or excommunicated, allowing them to simply sidestep the consequences of their actions is a disservice to every Rice student who has faithfully abided by the Honor Code.

Voting "yes" to the proposed Honor Council amendment to Article XII will affirm the academic integrity of our institution by demanding that all accused students go through the same judicial evaluation process. If this much-needed amendment passes, students will still be allowed to withdraw for two semesters, but now the charges will be waiting for them upon their return. Our Honor Code may not yet be perfect, but this amendment will help to make it significantly more fair.

Ted Wieber is a Hanszen College senior and a member of the Honor Council.

---