The following guidelines came out of a discussion with the academic department involved in the Planets abstract, released Spring 2011. This case involved two students suspected of inappropriately collaborating on a take-home exam. Although the professor felt very strongly that cheating had occurred, the students denied this. Ultimately, the jury did not feel it had enough evidence to come to a statement of violation. Following the release of the abstract, several Honor Council members met with the Planets department to discuss lingering issues from the case. These guidelines, meant to be tools for juries who are faced with conflicting or unclear statements, came out of that discussion and were consented on by Honor Council. These guidelines are not currently in effect, but will be enacted if passed through Plenary in Fall 2011.
- If a jury feels it requires greater expertise in order to evaluate a case brought before it, the jury may consent to contact an individual with such expertise who has been thus far uninvolved in the case and who can help the jury more fully understand the situation. This may include professors in the relevant departments at Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and/or Swarthmore.
- When the confronting professor is a visiting or first-year professor, he or she will be given the option of having a permanent faculty member also present during all or part of the proceeding, as permanent faculty members are more familiar with the way the Honor Code functions at Haverford and the practice of handling potential violations through Honor Council.
- If there are significant discrepancies between the claims of the confronted and confronting parties and the facts of the case are unclear, the jury should consider not making a decision regarding whether or not a violation occurred in a single night. Instead, the jury should continue to reflect on the situation and attempt to come to a clearer understanding of the incident. The jury may also continue to gather information and speak to appropriate individuals if necessary.
- Sometimes a jury receives additional statements from parties who have had some involvement in a case but are not formally acting as confronting parties. If the jury feels that it would be useful to talk with these people in person, or the case involves discrepancies between the different parties’ accounts of the incident(s), the jury may request to speak with the writers of the additional statements.
Drafted April 24, 2011
Consented on by Honor Council on April 24, 2011