Abolish the Honor Council
Steven Nelson | Editor at Large
Last Updated:2/2/10 Section: Opinion
At the beginning of last semester I wrote an editorial regarding our Honor Council. In it I described a series of concerns that I had with the conduct of the Council. I compared their electoral system to that of Iran. I also wrote that students were beginning to consider abolishing the Council. I am now convinced that the Council should be abolished, that the administration should thoroughly review past cases, and that students should stop participating in efforts to reform the Honor Council.
Institutions are difficult to abolish. This is because members have a vested interest in preserving their positions. It has become a point of pride for members of certain social circles to serve on the Council. But this institution has no value to our community and has shown itself to be neither beholden to student opinion nor reasonable application of justice. There are two reasons why my position has shifted toward abolition. First, the Honor Council intentionally ignored the results of a referendum promoting reform. Second, after serving on the Honor Council's appeals committee in January I witnessed, to my horror, the arbitrary and often unfair administration of cookie-cutter justice.
In order to run for election to the Honor Council, a student must first be approved by a "nominating committee." In reality, this is not a committee that nominates a candidate. More often known as the "guardian council," it filters out unwanted candidates and prevents them from running for election. Seventy percent of students voted in favor of reforming the guardian council to increase student power. Although the proposal was merely to reform, rather than eliminate, the institution, members of the Council dug in their heels, with only three members of the Council voting in favor of the reform.
A telling photo of Council members voting down the change showed one of the three covering his face in disappointment at what the others were doing. The Council's decision to vote "no" gave a middle finger not only to the promoters of reform, but to any perception of democracy. Student Assembly liaison Will Perkins ('11) told members of the Student Assembly that he opposed the change because he was voting against the democratic reform because his feelings were hurt by the campaign.
Institutions are difficult to abolish. This is because members have a vested interest in preserving their positions. It has become a point of pride for members of certain social circles to serve on the Council. But this institution has no value to our community and has shown itself to be neither beholden to student opinion nor reasonable application of justice. There are two reasons why my position has shifted toward abolition. First, the Honor Council intentionally ignored the results of a referendum promoting reform. Second, after serving on the Honor Council's appeals committee in January I witnessed, to my horror, the arbitrary and often unfair administration of cookie-cutter justice.
In order to run for election to the Honor Council, a student must first be approved by a "nominating committee." In reality, this is not a committee that nominates a candidate. More often known as the "guardian council," it filters out unwanted candidates and prevents them from running for election. Seventy percent of students voted in favor of reforming the guardian council to increase student power. Although the proposal was merely to reform, rather than eliminate, the institution, members of the Council dug in their heels, with only three members of the Council voting in favor of the reform.
A telling photo of Council members voting down the change showed one of the three covering his face in disappointment at what the others were doing. The Council's decision to vote "no" gave a middle finger not only to the promoters of reform, but to any perception of democracy. Student Assembly liaison Will Perkins ('11) told members of the Student Assembly that he opposed the change because he was voting against the democratic reform because his feelings were hurt by the campaign.
Be the first to comment on this story