Student Senate Votes Down Ammendments to Honor Code

By Kim Tenure

On Monday, October 3rd, the proposed amendments to the Honor Code went before Student Senate. Senators, club representatives, and other concerned students were there for about two hours debating and discussing the proposal. Despite the overwhelming support from both the Honor Commission and the faculty, Senate voted down the proposal in a 25-4 majority vote.

At the start of the meeting, Senate President Al Wilkins called the meting to order and put aside new business until the October 17th open meeting. Parliamentarian Michael Straubel established the format of the meeting: each of the five main points would be presented and seven to ten minutes of debate/ discussion would be allocated for each point. After each point was discussed, the floor would be reopened for further debate before the actual vote.

Some of the main proposed changes were: there would be a discussion led in the beginning of the semester regarding academic integrity in the specific class, professors would be allowed in the classroom during exams, there would be a preliminary style conference before the actual hearing, the pledge would be changed to a positive one that would be signed once a semester stating that students are upholding academic integrity, and that the student would be allowed to have an advisor for the actual hearing. The discussions after each point were informative and showcased how active and concerned, even this relatively small group of students was.

After each point was discussed Straubel discussed the general consensus of the student groups that senate outreached regarding the new proposal.

Overall, it seemed impossible to pinpoint just one reason why the honor code failed. Students brought up the fact that the idea of having professors discuss academic integrity should already be happening and it is not, so what would make this amendment stronger then the one already in place. Also one student, in response to the proposal to allow teachers in the classroom, brought up the analogy of a child being left at home. If the parents provide a babysitter it is understandable and you might not be on your best behavior, but if they allow you to stay home by yourself, you are going to feel grown-up and proud and not want to lose the privilege; similarly professors in the classroom, might prevent cheating, but it would not foster trust and honor.

Another point brought out was in the preliminary conference setting, that student involvement may be lost due to the required number of faculty and administrators on the board. One student brought out that it really gives one administrator the same power as the six students that are used in the present system.

The proposed honor pledge reads: I affirm that I will uphold GettysburgCollege’s principles of academic honesty in all my academic integrity, and foster an atmosphere of mutual respect within and beyond the classroom. Students pointed out that although the language used may feel all warm and fuzzy, the changes may not work, and while many students would love to write the pledge only once a semester, others claim that writing it on each paper makes you stop and think. Also the new pledge takes out the part about witnessing cheating, and some speculate that it takes student involvement out. Finally, although there were less student objections to having an advisor, in this case any member of the Gettysburg community, with you during the hearing, some said that if the advisor wasn’t allowed for all processes then it would give them and incomplete picture and they could not fully help.

Senior Senator Eric Payne said that, “My main objection is that it’s too ambiguous; it’s too soft, and that it really has no hard goals, no hard standards, and it’s too loose….I’d like to see a new proposal, pretty much…A new honor code that expanded to the entire campus community and all aspects of college life, I’m talking about behavior, academics, all that kind of stuff, so we have an honor code that really holds students to that standard, in not just classes.” Senate Treasurer Fred Reimer also stated, “A lot of the ideas were pretty good ideas that were put forth today, but the language itself just needs to be worked on.” Former Honor Commission Chair, Matthew Recore, said that, “I have a strong knowledge about the honor code and a strong passion for what it stands for, and upon reading the current proposed changes, I realized that it took a lot of the power that the students currently have and gives it to academic advisors.”

Now that the proposal has failed, the question on most people’s mind, is what will happen next? The answer was brought forth in one of the two proposed motions at the end of the Student Senate meeting: the creation of an ad-hoc committee or sending the proposal to the academic affairs committee. In both cases, either committee would have collaborated to resubmit the proposed changes for another vote. Senate called to question both motions, separately of course, and voted for the creation of an ad-hoc committee that would consist of students, faculty, and honor commission representatives, in hopes that these representatives can better articulate how to best incorporate all the voices of concern and input into a structurally stable and implementable code. Ultimately, as one student senator questioned, is it better to implement a flawed code with more flawed revisions or wait until it can be replaced with a code that students can uphold and embrace?