Project Runway abstract discussion minutes 10/30/2013

Mo si

Cory: The first time I read this I was shocked at the consistence at which the jury pushed their opinion. Clearly, they agreed on the harsh (in my mind) punishment of a year’s separation. I’m aware that the intention is that separation be brought up in most instances of separation. Particularly as circumstantial went in this case, I am confused as to what the gain was for separation, particularly considering that Tim’s father refused to take him back. I think the president was right, regardless of whether or not there was cheating (I’m not convinced). The jury was hasty.

Jack: I think it’s difficult to see through the pseudomization. Prof. Garcia said something about losing faith in the Honor Code.

Cory: And then Tim and Heidi said the same thing in the other direction.

Jack: Professors have a really good notion of what their assignments are and the legitimate level of collaboration. They sometimes don’t do a great job of conveying that. THere’s a huge gap between 2 semesters separation and none at all. I have no idea what type of assignment it was or how easy it is to figure stuff out. THe jury and profs spent a long time on the case; I worry that the prez did not spend long enough.

Cory: I agree that I don’t like the idea of a president changing the results of a case so much. However, I simply have a hard time liking the facts of the case here. I imagine that the prez was as reluctant as you, but there were here 2 students whose lives were about to be changed, and not for the better.

Alison: But the prez also got rid of their zero in the course.

Cory: I don’t think it’s a small thing to tell a student that s/he wasted a credit for the smaller.

Alison: Not small, but within reason here.

Cory: I’m still uncertain that they did anything wrong at all. Specifically with separation, I’m with the prez, because s/he had a reasonable stance compared to the jury. I don’t see a reason not to cut down. I’ve been close to people who were having trials; it’s an extremely stressful experience. THe prez isn’t kidding that they’ve already been found in violation and they feel really bad. How much punitive do we need before we say “you’re miserable enough now”?

Erin: ONe thing that came up for me when we talked on Honor Council it seems that the jury sees this as a level of similarity between the assignments that didn’t match up with what they said. It wasn’t punitive, but it was because something was going on, maybe they didn’t understand the code, but they needed time off.

Cory: That’s very sweet and condescending of the jury. I have a hard time believing that most people separated don’t feel that judgment was passed on you. I have a hard time believing that separation, spending time away from the Code, brings you closer to the Code.

BG: I don’t know that you’re right and what I’ve seen in my experience with people who are separated and write a letter or just that I’ve interacted with have said that their time apart made them reflect on what mattered in the Code. They didn’t take it for granted but something that is special. The outside world has no Code. It’s easy for students, after 3 years, to say that the Code is part of your life. It’s only when you do something like take classes at community college that you see the value of the Code.

Cory: I’m happy for those people, but at the same time, few people live at Haverford all year.

BG: I’m talking about the academic context.

Jack: People who go abroad often come back and have a greater appreciation for Haverford and the Code. I know it’s considerably different between going abroad and being separated, but even that time can give a stark contrast to Haverford.

BG: One thing I often think about after a trial is, now that the person has gone through the process, after they complete the resolutions, will I trust them the same as I trust anyone else in the community? I want the answer to be yes. If someone participates fully in a trial, admits what they did, takes steps for restoration, it takes less for me to need to trust them again. If they lie the whole time and only change their story for the appeal (which I think is the case) it wouldn’t be easy for me to trust that person as my classmate. Because the jury represents the community and the community’s trust, their opinions at the end of the trial are relevant.

Cory: You clearly take for granted that they were lying…

BG: I’m saying assuming someone violated the Code.

Cory: I think that is absolutely fair. But there’s a lot to the question. What makes one person trust someone differs from one person to the next. Haverford as a community tends to say we want restorative action and to feel that this person means what s/he says. That’s a wonderful sentiment, but jury’s go and do some very punitive things and say that that will restore trust. I don’t understand that. I think separation, particularly with one person not allowed back home, would have been negative for these people’s lives. There’s an argument to be made for losing a class, but it’s certainly punitive as well as possibly restorative. In abstracts, the jury often says that the students should go and learn. There’s no education here, presumably because they didn’t trust the people. I don’t see why they need to impose a charge of perjury as well as plagiarism.

Erin: One thing I find interesting is that Tim and Heidi say the whole time in the trial that there was no inappropriate collaboration, but they gave a different story to the president. What do you think was the effect of that on the situation.

Alison: I maybe wish there could have been another trial with everyone being honest because it seems like if you’re having conflict between jury resolutions and an appeal is that both should be based in the same info.

Cory: There are lots of reasons not to ask everyone to go through the trial again. I personally believe that if they did decide to tell a lie, it was to the president, not the jury.

Alison: Why do you think that?

Cory: I believe in innocent until proven guilty. ALso, I see two students being bombarded with negative energy, people not believing them, telling them “you did this.” There are cases, more than people think, I believe, when people simply start believing what people tell them. They were not trusted throughout the trial. I think they had a lot of conversations about whether or not they actually did, and only after the trial came to be convinced that they did something wrong.

Damon: It’s very hard to get an idea of actually what went on, how similar the projects were, exactly the guidelines as to what level of collaboration was appropriate. I honestly have no clue if they were honest. All we know is that 2 profs and 10 students, after deep inspection, came to the conclusion that there was inappropriate collaboration. The question is what did they do with that? If they did violate the Code, was this appropriate?

Erin: This could segue us into what should the appeals process look like? How can we make it most fair for everyone? Right now the appealing party write a written statement to the party and then meets with the party, then the trial chair meets with the president and explains the resolutions. How can we change this process to give the prez all the info?

Jack: The letter from the prez talks about how they had an unsettling experience and were judged, and because of that, they had gone through restoration. That bothered me, because it suggested that the trial in and of itself was enough to accomplish all 3 objectives. Brian was talking about positive trials being much better, and I think the appeals process is really difficult for that reason, because in this trial, from what I’ve read, it does not appear that any of the 3 goals were met through the trial itself. However, I could see where a trial could happen where the goals are met just in the process. Thus, I think the appeal process is necessary but difficult because the prez cannot understand how far the trial got towards the goals. Here I think the prez assumed too much.

Cory: My perception is that Honor Council exists because the administration allows students self-government, but the administration does still hold final say which cannot be revoked.

BG: The only reason that Council has the weight it does is through the administration’s support. For instance, recommendations of grade changes give the profs final say. If the administration stopped trusting students to make decisions on juries, they’d take the power away. Juries have power because the administration trusts us. The Code started because the prez gave students the ability to make decisions.

Damon: I feel like an appeal should feel like something was colossally messed up on the trial. In my mind it shouldn’t be done simply if you disagree with your resolutions, though that’s substantively different if you think carrying them out will cause a major life crisis.

BB: To be fair, I think that if there’s a jury that’s not necessarily upholding restorative justice as an ideal, you could argue for an appeal there.

Alison: I agree.

Cory: Damon, you said there should be an appeal of something is colossally wrong or if something would be profoundly wrong in their lives. Aside from students who bring themselves to Council, I can see how separation for a year can seem colossally wrong. It could be the case that after a year of separation, they would feel better. I don’t think we can ask students who don’t want to be separated to enjoy being separated.

Damon: Right before tentative resolutions it says that the professor felt that separation was not warranted based on the original violation but possibly on the violation of not admitting having done anything wrong.

Cory: Passing judgment on their refusal to admit to doing anything wrong seems over the top. Should we stack their perceived flaws as people on top of one another, or should we stick to the job we set out to do?

BG: Our system is very much not like the US justice system. There’s a statement of violation, which is a little bit like a guilty or innocent verdict. After that, it becomes very Quaker: there’s a breach of trust, and what can we do to fix it? That’s what our system is about, and it becomes impossible if people won’t admit to wrongdoing. That doesn’t mean they should be punished harder, but it means there’s something wrong with that person’s understanding of the Code. If the person’s not in a place to participate, you can’t just move on.

Cory: I see no evidence that they were unwilling to participate; I see perfectly rational reactions to them not being believed.

BG: If the jury is right that the violation happened and the students lied, does the logic follow?

Cory: For the purposes of this discussion, the students are indeed lying. We do not hold the ideals of the US justice system. The justice system has harsher penalties for those found guilty on an innocence plea. Do we want that? Do we want to err on the side of mercy or judgment?

BG: The results look similar, but the process is very different.

Jack: Students very rarely intentionally cheat; instead they tend to come to the realization afterwards, sometimes during the trial itself. What happened here is that, when they realized they’d cheated, they refused to admit that it happened. Then it became impossible to figure out whether or not it had been accidental. Because they stonewalled, it was interpreted as a malicious act, which is going to need considerably stronger resolutions. My thought process is that, being at Haverford, you need to actively engage with the Code, and realize that if you did something wrong, you’ve got to accept that and say so. The fact that they did not acknowledge the existence of inappropriate collaboration is why there were stronger resolutions.

Damon: One thing I’ve been thinking about as we speak is that this abstract puts us as current members of the community is that we have to pit our trust of the profs and jury against our trust of Heidi and Tim. Both sides have to be held to the same standard. In picking a violation or non-violation, we are declaring that one of the parties has misinterpreted the way things are. We are put in an uncomfortable situation in that not everyone can be right in this abstract.

Erin: What should a jury do if you are not comfortable consenting to a statement of violation or resolutions if you think you’re not hearing the full truth? How do you proceed as a jury?

Cory: This is going to sound squishy and hippyish, but I think the jury did everything wrong in this case because I see no evidence that they ever approached Tim and Heidi in a human way. Everything came from an official setting. Circumstantial is dedicated to telling the jury your troubles, but it seems that nobody ever stood up for Tim and Heidi, in front of Tim and Heidi.

Erin: Perhaps some of that human interaction was lost in the condensing into an abstract.

BG: We have nothing that the jury said in either direction.

Ryan: It says, “after much discussion.” That usually means that it was a ridiculous amount of time. Also 2 jurors stood outside on separation.

Cory: One of them was probably the one who wanted harsher penalties.

Ryan: I don’t know if that’s an assumption you could make. That said, even one juror standing outside of consensus on separation could provoke a large amount of discussion.

Jack: Correct me if I’m wrong, but no presumptions are made during fact-finding?

BG: The jury only asks questions. That’s not to say the questions can’t have a tone, but there’s no way for us to tell. They don’t pass judgment until the deliberations after the parties leave.

Jack: I have a hard time viewing 10 random jurors entering fact-finding with an inquisitorial mindset. I assume there is a portion of the campus with no faith in the Code, but I highly doubt that they would have been inquisitorial, because they had no reason to.

Cory: Only half the jury is randomly selected; half of the jurors are Council members.

Jack: Aside from a love of the Code, I see no universal similarity between members of Honor Council. I think it’s in and of itself random.

Cory: I think running for Council is self-selecting for people who think their voices should be heard on Code issues. I genuinely love Council, but I don’t think we can claim that members don’t see rules as rigid.

BG: That’s an assumption you can’t make.

Damon: The simple statement that Council came to a suspicion of violation may have been hours of deliberation.

Cory: I have a hard time believing that community jurors don’t have greater respect for Council jurors.

BG: There is self-selection on Council, but I don’t know what it’s for. I do agree that juries tend to be more empathatic than any deans at any college anywhere.

Cory: And yet they keep putting out punitive decisions.

Ryan: That’s your opinion.

Jack: The last 2 years I always got really angry because there’d be a statement of violation, followed by circumstantial, and no or hardly any punitive resolutions. I was usually pissed off because I didn’t think the jury went far enough. I always think there was too much emphasis on the fact that it was an accident and nobody questioned if they were lying. My opinions have changed. However, it is nice to see that the jury did take this seriously, and that the questions of sufficient education on the Code were posed to be prof.

Damon: The trial chair, in his/her letter to the prez, accused the prez of lying to say that there was no disciplinary action to other institutions of higher learning. When the grad school asks, the school answers yes or no. If the answer is yes, Martha gets to explain circumstances, including whether or not it was expunged. What are your thoughts?

Cory: That’s one of several very harsh resolutions, and I can see why the prez took it out. Not that the jury was intentionally harsh, but I think they took it too far.

Jack: I’ve always had a problem with reporting because we are giving ourselves as students an unfair advantage over other colleges because at those, if there was the equivalent of a statement of violation, the box is checked yes. They can explain that there was an accident, but the answer is yes. The fact that we can impose resolutions like a grade change and then recommend the box be checked no gives us a huge advantage. Here I see it as not lying but taking advantage of something that I do not see as an upstanding process.

BB: In the interest of transparency, I want to say that I understand that this clause on reporting to grad schools is not binding; all it does it makes a recommendation to the dean, who can agree or disagree at his/her preference.

Cory: My impression is that on most everything to do with trials and resolutions passed, administration historically does all or almost all of what trials put out as recommended.

BG: I don’t know on the grad school issue. Separation’s not really a question; grad schools, I have no idea. We don’t see those grad school application. Also, only a small number of schools (generally law or med) ask. Martha has to fill out a dean’s letter. There’s a bit of a gray area about whether or not Council trials are disciplinary actions. She wants the jury to decide whether or not it counts as disciplinary; she also wants to student to have some idea that this might be coming up. She also knows that undergrads don’t really understand the process and that juries spend a while talking without actually knowing what they’re talking about.

Ryan: I’d also guess that it doesn’t come up that often, because only small percentages of students are involved in the various categories to which this would be relevant.

Erin: In the interest of time, any final thoughts?

BB: One thing that concerned me was the section of the chair’s letter to the prez in the second full paragraph on the page when they say that the code calls for separation. It’s as simple as that. I’m wondering when the last time they read the code was, because it says that separation normally happens but doesn’t mandate a thing. If some kind of miscommunication or procedural error could be attributed to the jury in this trial, this is what I would point to. How deep did it get in their head that they had to be separated because it was a plagiarism case? This part is, not knowing any context, troubling.

Ryan: Last time they read the Code was probably when everyone reads to Code at the start of the trial.

Damon: I agree. It seems that they are reducing a complex issue to a very simple level. It seems to negate the idea of a trial, which is to look more wholesomely at the issue. It seems that the letter gets really salty.

BG: It’s unprofessional. It’s not a letter you should write to the president of the college. You can say what you said in a better way.

Cory: THe president was respectful.

Ryan: The president was patronizing.

Cory: Yes, but justifiably so. I also wonder how we feel about Tim’s explanation that his father would not let him stay at home during the separation. This seems like a big deal, that is not addressed anywhere else in the abstract.

BG: Assuming that it’s entirely true, that’s a huge deal. We can’t assume that it’s true or that it’s not true. One of the scariest part of Council trials, particularly separation, is how their parents will react. Sometimes they won’t even tell their parents about the trial. Separation is a resolution you can’t hide. I’m assuming a lot, and it’s an assumption I shouldn’t make, but it sounds to me like he hasn’t talked to his father, or the father hasn’t actually refused to have him at home. If the father is angry, it should be at the jury’s decision, not at his son. It could very well be exaggeration.

Cory: It could be, but I don’t think such a claim is something he’d make up lightly. If separation came to pass, it would be clear, and afterwards, if he was making it up, people could judge him. What’s supposed to distinguish Haverford is that you can tell the jury something like that, and the jury’s job is to believe him.

Ryan: Every jury that I’ve been on, if someone had said something like that, it would spark at the very least an hour of discussion. Such a discussion could have been taken out in the interest of keeping it short.

BG: There are very few sentences here for what was probably a very long conversation. I’m with Ryan that it was probably a big discussion.

Jack: I always find it very interesting when there’s a joint confronted party because circumstantial is very personal. Had the resolutions been tempered by that in some way, there are many new questions. I could imagine that had it been split it, Heidi might have been separated and not Tim, but then you have to ask if that’s fair, given that it was the same infraction.

BG: Not even that. Imagine that they are two totally separate cases with very different circumstances.

Cory: Then it becomes a question of the individual humans.

BG: Is fairness not a question as well? You have to balance them. If there were separate trials, and one was separated and not the other just because Tim’s father wouldn’t leave him at home, that’s a problem. But what do you do?

Jack: THat’s why I wonder about circumstantial and its effect on resolutions.

Damon: I think it’s time to end.

Mo si