Anastastia abstract discussion 11/12/13

Introductions.

Moment of silence.

Jeremy Steinberg: Initial thoughts?

Jack Hasler: I generally find it a little weird that there was no reporting to institutions of higher education because it was such a blatant case of copying from the Internet. I get that she was an international student but it seemed to be obvious cheating.

Erin Berlew: How much should trial conduct come into play in the jury’s resolutions? It says she was ‘apologetic.’

Melissa Lee-Litowitz: Furthering that, how would it have been different if she had brought herself to Council without having been confronted by a professor?

Rachel: One thing for conduct to come into play if you’re dismissive or don’t admit to what you did, but it’s possible for someone to act sorry because they got caught.

Karina Wiener: Was on this jury. The reason for ‘apologetically’ is because the student came to Council knowing she’d done something wrong and had plans to work with a writing tutor, etc. Could have affected the jury because they saw how capable and willing she was to make changes so that they didn’t lean toward separation. Attitude can be bullshitted but it can also be clear when it’s genuine.

Jeremy Steinberg: Karina’s point brings up question three about separation.

Amanda: What would separation entail for a BMC student?

Ivan Sanchez: I came for the Blue’s Clues discussion earlier–Haverford’s council can only exclude BMC students from here. It’s possible for a student to be doing similar things at their school and have it go unnoticed. I do agree that it wasn’t severe enough (like Amelia or The Tempest) to warrant separation; this doesn’t compare.

Karina Wiener: It’s important to base separation not on how extreme the violation was but on the restoration and how susceptible the person is to restore themselves to the community on their own versus needing the time off.

Jack Hasler: Difficulty with BMC/HC and separation–the idea is for people to take time away from college and reflect, which can’t be done if the student is still in the Bi-Co and still taking classes; they wouldn’t have time to reflect.

Jeremy Steinberg: That could be why separation of a BMC student from HC is usually accompanied by

Ivan Sanchez: I wonder if it would be possible to see if Resolution 6 (Bryn Mawr release) has been carried out. More could be done to educate students about the system at each college. Could be Honor Council or during Customs.

Jack Hasler: Interesting in how many abstracts released about international students. I feel that they are a bonus to the community, but it should be recognized that they’re from a different cultural background and could have different ideas about academic integrity, and may not be as fluent in English to understand the nuances of the Code. We take for granted that we can read it and fully grasp it. There’s already education, but more would be done.

Karina Wiener: Hard to write an abstract about an international student without mentioning that fact because it changes the dynamics of the whole case.

Jack Hasler: Important for us to know in the abstract in order to grasp the case. However, the student was pretty competent in English.

Ivan Sanchez: Curious about Resolution 8–I’ve never read a recommendation not to report to institutions of higher learning and reporting in general seems to be a new trend. How can we get around it since Honor Council is not precedent based? Do we label violations as disciplinary action? It seems to go against the restorative nature of the process.

Karina Wiener: Two years ago Honor Council was asked to come up with guidelines for reporting by the Deans because we don’t have a punitive system and we need a way to regulate it. Some of these abstracts are part of the backlog, so that could be why we’re seeing the trend.

Melissa Lee-Litowitz: There has been a procedure change. When applying to another school, many schools ask Dean Denney if disciplinary action was taken. Running the risk of misrepresenting the students or making trials too punitive, so the procedural change is that not every jury is required to make a decision to make the recommendation. She trusts the jury to make the recommendation or to leave it to her discretion, which takes some stress off the jury if they can’t come to consensus on this issue. It is discussed by most juries.

Jeremy Steinberg: Regardless of the recommendation, the decision is Martha Denney’s.

Ivan Sanchez: Would that affect this case because Anastasia is a Bryn Mawr student, even though she took classes at Haverford? What happens in the gray area of students taking classes on the other campus?

Jeremy Steinberg: Council does notify Honor Board at Bryn Mawr and their dean when a violation occurs.

 

*Discussion of Swarthmore’s lack of Honor Code and some jokes*

 

Jack Hasler: I appreciate the recommendations to report to grad schools because it reminds the jury that the Haverbubble isn’t the only thing that matters; it makes them consider that they will leave the community and shouldn’t have an unfair advantage over students who committed the same infraction under a different system. I’m disappointed it wasn’t reported in this case.

Rachel: It is a restorative justice process but there are consequences for actions here that could follow you later in life. Having the option to report is important, and important for students to know ahead of time.

Jeremy Steinberg: Not all students who go through a process will apply to grad school, so how does it relate to trial goals if it won’t affect all students on trial?

Karina Wiener: As far as the facts go, all jurors recognized the violation. Objectively, I would report it. The decision was made in this case for the trial goals, but I’m not sure if it should be.

Melissa Lee-Litowitz: The way I look at reporting is more related to accountability both for the student and for the community–we release abstracts for community education. Example – The Tempest featured restoration of the community without Prospero. Maybe reporting is holding ourselves to the same standard as other institutions. In cases of accidental plagiarism, reporting might be going too far, but it’s up to the jury.

 

*Clarification of trial goals.*

*Ivan makes fun of Karina, tree killing. Jeremy clarifies that Council wrote the discussion questions.*

 

Melissa Lee-Litowitz: The abstract is really short. Were ideas of the trial properly reflected? Could you get a sense of the case and deliberations from this? If we want to make shorter abstracts, are we sacrificing someone that you want to see?

Karina Wiener: The situation was adequately reflected, but the chair’s report circumstantial section was basically the same as the fact-finding, so there were other issues with this abstract. Looking back, I would have added more to the abstract because Anastasia’s attitude wasn’t captured properly. Still, it’s much less confusing and clearer than other abstracts, so in a way the length makes sense for the simplicity.

Jack Hasler: This isn’t the shortest abstract I’ve seen. As an HCO, asking my freshmen to read The Muppets is difficult.

Rachel: The trial itself doesn’t seem too complex, and no jurors stood outside of consensus. It seems straightforward.

Karina Wiener: Jeremy, why are you smirking?

Jeremy Steinberg: It’s confidential.

 

*Conversations about tree-killing, Jihad, virgins, etc.*

 

Ivan Sanchez: I think the length is fine because it’s straightforward.

 

*Conversation about the 1997 animated film Anastasia and how it’s Jack’s second favorite Disney movie,

but it isn’t a Disney movie, Pinky and the Brain*

 

Karina Wiener: This was sent to trial with different pseudonyms but the abstract writers weren’t familiar with the reference. Important to make it something people understand and also racially sensitive.

Rachel: The Muppets is an example.

Ivan Sanchez: Are genders conserved in the abstracts?

Karina Wiener: No.

 

*Conversation about specs, boyfriends, boyfriends attending Plenary, Ivan not necessarily attending Plenary.*

 

Ivan Sanchez: The first question is useless because we can’t separate BMC students from their home community, so it isn’t effective.

Rachel: How is that different from separated students taking community college classes?

Jack Hasler: Haverford Students’ Association is defined as Haverford students and Bryn Mawr students on living on Haverford’s campus, so we automatically define some Bryn Mawr students as part of the Haverford community. I don’t have a problem with restoring them to that community, but I wonder whether we can address her breach of trust with her Bryn Mawr community.

Karina Wiener: I think the attempt to restore her to Bryn Mawr was in having the Honor Board release the abstract to BMC and having her utilize the Bryn Mawr Writing Center.

Jeremy Steinberg: There’s a Bi-Co Liaison in place in the Constitution that means that the Liaison can attend trial preceedings.

Karina Wiener: That hadn’t passed as a resolution yet when this trial occurred, but I hope it’s utilized in the future.

Moment of silence.