The Student-Faculty Advisory Committee has come up with guidelines for a student honor council — a mechanism in which students themselves can adjudicate cases of academic dishonesty. SFAC disseminated copies of their proposal to faculty members today, and the issue will be discussed at the next faculty meeting later this year.

By Benjamin Fu
Gargoyle staff reporter
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007, The OG, news

graphic by Angelina Liang

THE STUDENT-FACULTY ADVISORY Committee has completed a draft of a new disciplinary policy for cases of academic dishonesty. The proposal calls for establishing a student honor council as a supplement to current means of dealing with academic infractions.

The new policy may be implemented as early as next school year, and will be discussed at the next faculty meeting later this year. Copies of the draft were given to faculty members today.

Instead of the “three strikes” rule previously used, there will be three possible courses of action to choose from for each case of alleged dishonesty. Students may decide to work out the problem with the teacher, with the assistant director, or with a student honor council.

An honor council would be a mechanism in which students themselves would adjudicate cases of academic dishonesty. The idea of an honor council met with overwhelming student approval in a vote held early October of this school year.

A new council would be appointed for each case. Each council would consist of six students — two seniors and one student from each of the other classes. The reason SFAC recommended having two senior representatives is that seniors are generally older and more experienced. Chosen members would only be excused or rejected for reasons such as tests or personal conflicts with the people involved in the case.

According to the SFAC draft, the council would only pass judgment on infractions of academic dishonesty, covered by Section 7.10 of the Uni High Student Handbook.

When a situation that needs adjudication arises, SFAC would randomly choose the council members early in the morning the day of the meeting. In order to prevent bribery and threats, the names of selected members would remain anonymous. The council would meet during lunch and, if necessary, up to the end of fifth period to discuss and finish its deliberations.

Both the person making the charge and the student being accused would have to present their accounts of the incident. The council would reach a decision based on these accounts. Supplementary information from other witnesses would be provided as needed.

However, the honor council's decision would not necessarily be binding.

“The jury is advisory,” said Assistant Director Sue Kovacs, a SFAC member. “The administration and person on trial must accept the jury decision or it is remanded to the administration.”

SFAC has also been discussing the effectiveness of its honor code, hoping to create a community of students that will “hold themselves to the highest standards of integrity and trust,” as the code states. SFAC members plan on emphasizing its importance by advertising and posting copies of the code throughout the school.

In order to promote Uni High as a school that emphasizes merit without cheating, SFAC is also increasing honesty standards for future Uni students.

Among other things, SFAC is considering updating the teacher recommendation form for prospective Uni students so that it more heavily stresses integrity and honesty.

If you have suggestions on these and related matters, attend SFAC meetings during lunch on Mondays to voice your opinions. For weekly updates, read the SFAC minutes that are sent out by e-mail after each meeting.

RELATED

— Gargoyle coverage: Are students ready to police themselves?

— Uni High Honor Code: Complete text

— Gargoyle coverage: Honor code ready for discussion

— Uni High Student Handbook: Rules and policy on academic dishonesty

— Uni High Student Handbook: Complete text