The following is the text concerning Universal Trial Procedures from the Constitution of the Students’ Association. This text on this page was last modified following Spring Plenary 2011.
(a) Pre-Trial
Before the trial, the confronted student and the confronting party will be informed by an Honor Council member about the trial procedure and their roles in the process. The confronted student must be informed in writing of the reasons why he/she was referred to Honor Council, and Honor Council must explain to the student why a trial is being held to resolve the situation. Both the confronted and confronting parties must be informed of who will be on the jury. The confronted and confronting parties may remove a maximum of two jurors each if they feel they cannot be objective. If the confronted and confronting parties choose to, they are allowed to question the originally selected jury in the presence of the Chair(s) under the discretion of the Chair(s), prior to their decision to remove any members.
(b) Role of the Honor Council (Co-)Chair in a Trial:
One of the (Co-)Chair(s) of Honor Council is automatically a member of every trial or other procedure, except in extenuating circumstances, when, with the permission of the student involved and the Dean of the College, s/he need not be. The Honor Council (Co-)Chair shall act in an appropriate capacity specific to each procedure (i.e. either as chair, jury/panel member, or support person to the chair). In cases where the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) will not be leading the procedure, Honor Council will appoint an experienced Honor Council member best suited to chair the trial, Student Facilitation Panel or Joint Student/Administration Panel. When the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) does not chair a trial/panel, the abstract for that trial/panel will include the role the (Co-)Chair(s) played in the trial/panel, and the specific reason(s) for this decision.
(c) Role of the Jury in a Trial:
Every member selected for a jury, including Honor Council members, is expected to have thoroughly read and reviewed the current version of the Honor Code in its entirety prior to serving on a trial. It is encouraged that jury members read past abstracts to review precedence in certain cases. The jury’s task is to find a resolution that balances, as fairly as possible, the interests of the community as a whole and those of the individual student involved. The goals of resolutions are to repair the breach of trust, and to achieve and address accountability and education. Although this is a community based on trust of all community members, there are times when the jury may be presented with a conflict between testimony and apparent fact, or between two testimonies. It is the duty of jury members to balance their trust of community members with their obligation to determine what has happened before they can arrive at any resolutions. If they are ultimately satisfied that their conclusion is correct beyond a reasonable doubt, then they may find the student in violation despite his/her claims to the contrary. The jury will answer three questions: ‘
i. Does what happened constitute a violation of the Honor Code?
ii. If it does, what were the circumstances under which this occurred?
iii. What is an appropriate action in response to this problem?
(d) Role of the Support Person:
The role of a support person is to be available (whether attending a trial or not) for emotional support. Broadly speaking, support people are not supposed to be “witnesses” or “legal counsel,” although their specific role in any particular trial is up to the chair.
i. For the Confronted and Confronting Parties
The confronted party may bring another community member to the proceedings for support. If the confronting party is a student, s/he may bring another student to act as a support person. It is strongly recommended that a support person have no direct connection to the issue involved in the trial. At any given time during the trial, the confronted or confronting party may request time to meet with their support person. However, this opportunity is under the discretion of the chair.
ii. Regarding Faculty
If the confronting party is a member of the faculty, s/he may consult with another member of the community for advice and support (as outlined in the Faculty Handbook) although they should not reveal the identity of the confronted party. Faculty members will not attend the trial proceedings as support people.
(e) The Actual Trial
i. Fact Finding
At the beginning of the trial, the chair will give a brief review of the trial’s purpose, answer any procedural questions, remind those assembled of the need to maintain confidentiality, and ask jury members whether they feel they can be objective. The jury is required to have fully read and reviewed the most current version of the Honor Code in its entirety prior to the trial. A discussion meeting will be held to address questions, comments and concerns about the Honor Code. The first part of the trial will focus on the facts. The confronting party will tell the jury what he/she believes the problem is, and why he/she felt it should be brought to Honor Council. The student will then give the jury his/her view of the situation. The jury will be free to ask fact-seeking questions of all parties. After the jury feels that it has no more fact- seeking questions, the two parties will leave the room. All persons involved in the trial, including confronting and confronted parties, support persons, and jurors, should consider the importance of maintaining confidentiality insofar as it affects all others involved in the trial.
ii. Jury Deliberation
During the next part of the trial, the jury will decide whether or not it feels that the event described transgresses the values and standards of the community, as expressed in the Honor Code. This decision must be reached through consensus. During the course of a trial, the jury may request that the confronted party return to answer more factual questions. When this occurs, the confronting party will be given the option of either returning to the proceedings or waiving his/her right to be there. If there is more than one confronted or confronting party in a trial, the jury has the right to request that an individual person be questioned out of the other’s presence. For this action to take place, the confronted and confronting parties must give their consent. If the jury feels it needs to recess until the following business day, it may do so. During a recess, jury members may not discuss cases in progress with anyone, except other jurors and for support purposes. Additionally, the chair of the trial may discuss the cases in progress with the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) and the Dean of the College at their discretion. All individual discussions will be brought to the entire jury’s attention at the next jury meeting. If it is decided that the student’s actions were not in violation of the Code, the matter is dropped, and both parties are so informed. However, the jury still has the option of recommending resolutions to the parties.
iii. Circumstantial
If it is decided that the actions were in violation of the Code, then the confronted party will return. It is normally an option for the confronting party to be present. All points made in the confronted party’s absence will be repeated to him/her by the chair. The jury will ask him/her about the circumstances surrounding the event in question. After this discussion, the student will be asked what he/she feels are fair resolutions and why. The jury will then discuss various resolutions with the confronted party. The confronting party is also given the opportunity to propose resolutions and to discuss them with the jury if they so choose.
iv. Continuation of Jury Deliberation
When the chair feels it appropriate, the party(ies) will leave the room, and the jury will continue discussing resolutions and will reach consensus on the resolutions that it feels are just. Resolution(s) should address such goals as educating the confronted party and the community, repairing the breach of trust between them and the community and holding the person accountable for their actions. After this initial consensus, the jury will adjourn for at least 24 and no more than 48 hours to think privately about the issues involved in the trial, and to rest. In the event that this timeline poses scheduling difficulties, the jury may consent to only count business days toward the timeline. A juror will inform the confronted and confronting parties of the jury’s tentative resolution. At this point, jury members will not discuss cases in progress with anyone, including other jurors. However, jurors may talk with the trial chair and the trial chair may talk with the Honor Council (Co-)Chair(s) and the Dean of the College regarding procedural concerns. The jury will then reconvene and either reaffirm its position or reach consensus on another action.
v. Presentation of the Resolution
The confronting and confronted parties will then be asked to return to hear the jury’s resolution and, if they disagree with this resolution, present their own to the jury. The confronting party, the confronted party and the jury will discuss their reasons for making their decisions; the confronting and the confronted party will leave; the jury will decide if it wants to change its recommendation. The jury will then reach a final consensus on a recommendation which the chair will present in writing to the parties involved and the Dean of the College. Before the trial is adjourned, the jury will choose one of its members to act as a liaison between the jury and the President in the event of an appeal or administrative offering of alternative resolutions. The liaison’s function will be to speak with the President to explain the jury’s position and answer any questions. At that point members of the jury will also be chosen to write the abstract.
vi. Post-Trial
In an academic case, if the Dean of the College feels that the jury’s resolution(s) is unsatisfactory, he/she may make a recommendation of his/her own to the professor, after discussing the recommendation with the jury. A student’s final grade in a course is the professor’s decision, as neither the jury nor the Dean can do more than recommend to a professor that a certain grade be given in a course. However, in cases where the jury and/or Dean recommend that a student be separated from the College, or any other sanction which does not involve a grade alteration, the professor has no jurisdictional power to change that resolution(s). In such cases, and in social cases, if the Dean strongly disagrees with the jury’s recommendation, s/he may offer alternative resolution(s) to the President. The Dean’s recommendation will be presented only after discussion with the jury about the resolution(s), and not longer than one week after receiving the chair’s report detailing the trial. Before making a decision, the President will speak with the jury or its liaison. Following their discussion, the President will have one week (while present at the College) to make his/her final decision on what will be done. The involved parties have a period of five business days from the time of the trial’s completion in which to appeal to the President to change the resolution(s). The appeal must be presented orally and in writing, and may be made on either substantive or procedural grounds. Abstracts will be written for all academic trials, social trials, and summer trials, and Student Panel, Student Facilitated Panel, and Joint Panel hearings. These will be distributed to the community in accordance with current constitutional guidelines. The procedures for abstracts released from Dean’s Panels will follow different guidelines due to the sensitive nature of the issues covered. These guidelines are outlined in Section 7.01.e.