Tag Archives: honor-board

Honor Board Case Studies

Posted on by

Hello from the Honor Board!

We recently held hearing panel pool trainings (thanks to everyone who came out and got trained) and got quite a bit of feedback regarding confusions about what sort of situations can be brought to the Honor Board. In efforts to help clear some of this confusion, we’re going to begin including some example cases that were brought to the Honor Board in the past. This time, we’ve included the case that we used during the case walkthrough portion of hearing panel pool training, as well as a case about tampering with fire alarms. Feel free to contact any of the Honor Board members with questions!

Lying to Group Members to Avoid a Meeting

Background and Charges

Kira and Leo were working on a four-person group project for Professor Wagner’s class. In general, the dynamic of the group was not working well: group members often did not have their work done in time for meetings, and frequently missed class work time. Shortly before one particular group meeting, Leo sent an email to the group saying that he would not be able to make it. He explained that he had a conflicting meeting for a group project in another class.

The next day, Kira was talking to a friend, and it came up in conversation that the friend had seen Leo playing video games during the time that the meeting of the previous night was going on. Kira later talked to Leo’s partner for the other class and learned that there had been no conflicting meeting scheduled for the other class. Kira, believing that Leo may have lied about having another meeting, submitted a report to the Honor Board.

In an interview with the Investigative Team, Kira explained that her goal was not to punish Leo, but to allow him to reflect upon his actions and understand their effects on others. She also noted that the team as a whole had not been functioning well, and no one had tried to initiate a discussion on improving team dynamics.

Leo was charged with violating the Respect for Others and Integrity clauses of the Honor Code. During a meeting with the Investigative Team, Leo accepted responsibility for the charges and expressed regret for his actions. The Investigative Team found the case to have merit for sanctions, and thus sent the case to hearing.

Sanctions

As Leo accepted the responsibility, the hearing panel went straight to the sanction-setting phase and decided upon the following sanctions:

– Letter of apology to Kira addressing how his actions affected the his group members

–  Professor Wagner was asked to take the case into account in the grade given for the assignment

– Leo was given a disciplinary warning, indicating that future violations could involve harsher sanctions.

Furthermore, the panel recommended to the Dean of Student Life that a meeting be held with the group members and a mediator to discuss group dynamics, and how to improve in the future.

Tampering With a Fire Alarm

Background

During Orientation, a small group of friends wanted to make some ramen noodles. The previous night, many of the group involved in this incident had slept in the lounge because of a fire alarm that had been set off by steam while making tea in another room. In efforts to avoid setting off the room’s smoke alarm, the group decided to see if they could turn off the alarm. They examined the smoke alarm and noticed a small white button on the smoke alarm head. After a brief discussion, Peter was chosen to push the button to see what would happen. When he pushed the button, the alarm in Paige’s room immediately went off. Peter pushed the button again hoping to silence the alarm, to no avail. The R2 on call responded to the alarm and called Public Safety to let them know that there was not a real fire in the room.

Because the alarm was not tripped by particulates (steam, smoke, etc.), Public Safety was able to silence and reset the alarm. The largest inconvenience was for the students in the surrounding rooms, the R2 on call, and Public Safety. The R2 on call and Public Safety were able to intervene before the Fire Department was notified.

On Topic

After interviewing several others, the investigative team learned that students have tried to cover the smoke heads with plastic wrap in the past to prevent them from being triggered by particulates. By releasing this abstract, the Honor Board would like to highlight the dangers of disabling or covering detectors. Everyone involved with this incident agreed that the biggest danger was the failure of fire alarms in the case of a real fire. Fire-related deaths are more likely to happen as a result of smoke than fire, so particulate sensors are critical to Olin’s fire safety strategy.

This case also serves as a reminder to use the kitchens when dealing with potentially steamy or smoky food or drink. The fire alarms in the kitchen are temperature sensitive and do not use particulate sensors. These were specifically changed to provide a place for cooking that wouldn’t trigger the fire alarms in case of steam or smoke. Keeping the kitchen doors closed should also reduce the likelihood that the particulate sensors in the hallway will be triggered.

In EH, several particulate sensors are located near bathroom/shower doors and can be triggered by a steamy shower. Because these sensors are in places where people sleep, they cannot be changed to temperature sensors and students are asked to be extremely careful with taking a steamy shower near these sensors.

Honor Board: Inclusion

Posted on by

What does the Honor Board even do? Some people think that when a case happens, the Honor Board has the power to decide what the sanctions are. That isn’t what actually occurs. The Honor Board’s role in cases is closer to mediators than adjudicators. Honor Board members are involved in collecting information for a case and handling the logistics, but we do not actually have any decision-making power. Determination of responsibility and of sanctions is decided by the Hearing Panel, a group of four students selected from a larger pool of trained students (although this semester’s pool isn’t as large as they tend to be (plug: get trained!)). Additionally, there are checks in the Panel selection process and sanction implementation process, so the idea of either the Board or the Panel having too much power doesn’t hold water. Still, it’s understandable that some people are skeptical and distrustful of the Honor Board. If your experience with the Honor Board is interacting with us for cases, and especially if you are unhappy with how the case was handled, then you’ll have a very particular perception of the Honor Board.
The Honor Board has been trying, for many semesters, to become more involved in the everyday lives of students. We want to become approachable to the student body as a whole. Rather than only being needed in times of crisis, the Honor Board should be a place for students to turn to no matter the circumstances. We are a living breathing organization and as such, we want to reevaluate our role on campus and what we can give to the student body. To achieve this end, this semester we decided on the goal to “position the Honor Board as supporters of inclusion” on campus.
As you may have noticed, the Honor Board earlier this semester put out a box asking students what parts of their identity they feel they can’t show on campus. From those responses, we grouped several similar ones into larger categories and then showed the breakdown of those categories in a pie chart shown in the dining hall. We also created a word cloud of the responses, which you can see below:

screen-shot-2016-11-28-at-16-54-07-1

This chart represents our 52 responses. We noticed a trend of students feeling that they could not share their conservatism, religious beliefs, national identity, and introversion, to name a few. Many students also expressed how their identity has changed since arriving at Olin and were not sure how to communicate those changes. In creating spaces for these students to not only express but also to uncover their identity, we hope that we are able to create a more inclusive community at Olin.
Of course, we don’t expect that this conversation ends with us or with this article. As such, we will be holding a conversation about identity at Olin on Wednesday December 7th at 7-8:30pm in the library. We expect this to be an open conversation based in the information we have already gathered from the student body along with other insights you are willing to share with us. It will be formatted as a drop-in session, so feel free to come by whenever you can. We will also be sending out an email with the following article so that we can get your feedback on it and have this conversation be an ongoing one. As always, please feel free to reach out to anyone on the board or come to our open meetings Tuesday during lunch in CC 210.

Honor Code Rewrite + Town Hall

Posted on by

Reading the Honor Code can sometimes take hours and it’s extremely confusing, but the Honor Board has been working hard this semester to end this. On April 7th, we’ll be having a Town Hall meeting where we’ll be voting on the following proposed changes:
Honor Code ≠ Honor Board: Do elections procedures come to mind when we say Honor Code? Yep, I thought not. Well, we agree! This amendment removes sections 5, 7-8 from the Honor Code, since these sections deal with the Honor Board as an organization and are better suited in the student government bylaws. This amendment is contingent on the Student Government voting in these sections into the bylaws, so that the Honor Board doesn’t get stuck in a lawless limbo (no one would want that).The Honor Code now only includes our mission, the values, hearing procedures, appeals, and amendment procedures (and is now only 8 pages instead of 20!).
A Re-write: Where we try and make the procedures easier to understand. Featuring: a glossary section! All of the actual content of our procedures stays the same but they are now much easier to understand.
Appeals: This amendment takes what StAR and the Honor Board already follow as the Appeals procedure and actually puts it into the Honor Code. Instead of being buried in the depths of the student handbook, the appeals procedure can now easily be found in the Honor Code itself.
Title IX: This amendment removes the Honor Board’s involvement in Title IX cases. Title IX cases would not be filed directly through the Honor Board anymore, but rather through StAR and/or any relevant outside authorities. We propose this amendment because we do not feel we are sufficiently qualified to hear these cases. Additionally, the expectation from the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education (the office that oversees Title IX) is that students not have a role in Title IX related cases. We understand that this revision could be very controversial and are happy to answer any questions.
Get ready to vote on all these things (and have mountains of snacks, because who are we kidding, no one comes to things if they don’t have snacks) and the next Town Hall Meeting on April 7th at 7pm (that’s in a week!). And here’s our preemptive apology for the number of all student emails that are going to come your way in the next couple of days. (#sorrynotsorry)

We Could Be Great

Posted on by

Every year at Olin, a group of 80 people sign a document that is hung by the Wooden Waterfall. And every year at Olin there is at least one Town Hall to talk about what’s on that piece of paper. And, inevitably, every year at Olin what is written is used as a means to address concerns or wrongs that occur on campus – and very seldom used to point out what is right.

Can a list of five values really capture what we want this community to be, and should they be used to frame or limit what can be talked about on campus? Some argue that yes, we absolutely need an Honor Code. It gives us a common language to talk about our community, it can reflect perhaps not who we are now but who we want to be, and it sets an expectation – as a member of Olin College, I will be great. But ‘greatness’ has such a wide variety of meanings to the students at Olin. If my definition of greatness doesn’t align with the Honor Code’s, am I wrong?

There is no safe venue for students to actively choose not to sign the Honor Code. There is no reaffirming ceremony, the Town Hall vote has slipped into symbolism, and when the question of whether or not the Honor Code should be kept comes up there are still those of us that laugh when the few votes of dissent trickle in. Why are you laughing?

Often, the alternative to the Honor Code is cited to be a rule-based system. A list of conduct, rather than a to-your-interpretation set of values. I propose a thought experiment: what if the values were replaced with….nothing? What would happen if suddenly there were no more values, but the Honor Board Hearing Panel Process was still in place? Perhaps campus would erupt in chaos… I tend to believe that things would likely continue the way they were.

From the Honor Board’s perspective, having the values is a neat and tidy way of handling cases and administering a report procedure. But there have been times in history where a report doesn’t necessarily fit into a tidy value – its more messy than that, just as real life always is. By having a listed set of values, perhaps we are limiting what we see as ‘honor-board-able’ actions thus leading to this perpetual state of minimal mediation through the procedure process.

Simply signing a piece of paper does not hold us accountable to ‘follow the Honor Code,’ though it is supposed to lend an air of promise to try to ‘be great.’ Voting to keep the Honor Code at every Town Hall doesn’t necessarily make us reflect on why we feel that way. Simply instituting an Honor Code does not fix or regulate our campus climate, but perhaps that isn’t the point of the Honor Code. Perhaps the focus on using it as a governing, behavior-controlling document isn’t how we should be thinking about it. Rather, perhaps it is a platform for discussing our campus climate. To reflect on personal values, on personal definitions of ‘greatness.’ To share with our community what makes us ‘great.’

The Honor Code is not the end-all be-all. We have the power to change, shape it, demolish it, ignore it, live it. What is the right thing to do?

Becoming More Honorable

Posted on by

“I’m not honorable.” “I’m always late for meetings.” “I lie all the time.” This is just a sampling of the excuses given last year by people who did not want to run for the Honor Board. I realize that many of these were said in a joking manner, but there is a troubling thought lurking behind this. The Honor Code is something every student signed, promising to live by it for their four years at Olin College. Is the Honor Code a document we sign once and then forget about, or are we supposed to live by its values every day? The following is an examination of individual clauses of the Honor Code in action.

The Integrity clause of the Honor Code reads, “I will represent myself accurately and completely in my work, my words, and my actions in academic and non-academic affairs.” Lying is clearly a direct violation of this clause. I see this clause broken most frequently when people probably do not mean to tell a non-truth. For instance, committing to do a certain task for a project or club and then not follow through on it is an inaccurate representation of one’s self. If someone is not going to do an assigned task, I would rather that they tell me before I count on them to finish it or as soon as they realized they could no longer complete the task.

The Respect for Others clause in our Honor Code reads, in part, “I will be patient and understanding of fellow community members, and considerate of their inherent dignity and personal property.” This starts with respecting, rather than ignoring, choices people make that differ from your own. I wish we had a culture where people felt comfortable talking about ‘taboo’ topics. In her article from the November 2014 Frankly Speaking, “Religion and the Broom Closet,” Claire Barnes said, “We as a community need to be able to have open, productive conversations about all aspects of life, including religion.” I agree. However, we have yet to achieve that level of respect at Olin. In my classes lately, I keep hearing things such as “because we’re all engineers we think…” Yet not everyone in the room is thinking the same thing. As soon as comments are made dismissing any other opinion that could be made, the environment can become hostile for anyone who thinks differently. When we leave the Olin Bubble, the diversity of opinions we encounter and need to work with is likely to grow. If we cannot respect each other here at Olin, how are we going to fair upon entering ‘the real world’?

Creating a culture of respect in all aspects of life is a long-term challenge. I invite you to start with the simple action of respecting others’ time. I have been on exactly one project team at Olin where every single person on the team committed to showing up on time. And it worked! I have been told it could never happen at Olin, yet it did. As a community, we have implicitly decided that habitual tardiness of 10, 15, 20 minutes is acceptable, but when my team decided that we should respect each other’s time, the difference to our team dynamics was amazing. In addition to having the full, scheduled time to meet, meetings no longer started with annoyance at teammates for being late, so the meetings began in more collaborative manner.

Openness to Change we frequently think of as being willing to try new things. This clause in the Honor Code reads, “I will be receptive to change, supportive of innovation, and willing to take risks for the benefit of the community.” To fully live this, we need to be receptive to new classes, new professors, trying new things in established classes. We also need to think about how we talk about such experiences. “Linearity sucks” “Don’t take [class] with [non-Olin prof]” Supporting innovation requires actively engaging in the process. Instead of stopping at “linearity sucks,” continue the process of improvement by figuring out why linearity sucks and also what is going well. Engage in a respectful conversation with the professor. Will it always work? No, but trying is important. Taking risks is not a passive activity.

I end with a request. Please look at the small places where you personally are not living up to the Honor Code and try and change. Choose a couple of clauses of the Honor Code to focus on, then try to live out the spirit of these clauses in full. As the Do Something clause says, “I will strive to better myself and my community and take responsibility for my own behavior…” To me, this surpasses the guilt trip ‘Do Something’ is frequently used as. The Do Something clause sounds to me like a way of life. I hope you see it as the same.

Honor Board MadLibs

Posted on by

Cases before the Honor Board are wide and varied. Topics range from personal differences and academic dishonesty to misuse of public materials. Above all, the Honor Board is a means for Olin Community members to work out their differences safely and confidentially.
Find a friend and fill out the MadLibs in the paragraphs below to learn about a past case.

This month’s MadLib is loosely based on an Honor Board case released Spring 2012 about lying to group members to avoid a meeting. You can read the original case, as well as several other abstracts, in the Honor Drive (\\fsvs01\StudentGroups\HonorBoard\Abstracts).

____________ (Name 1) and ______________ (Name 2) were working on a four-person group project for _____________(name of Olin class). In general, the dynamic of the group was ________________(negative adjective): group members often _______________ (past tense verb) during meetings, and frequently missed class work time. Shortly before one particular group meeting, __________ (Name 2) sent an email to the group saying that he would not be able to make it due to a conflicting _____________ (noun 1) for a group project in another class.

The next day, _____________ (Name 1) was talking to a friend, and it came up in conversation that the friend had seen _______________ (Name 2) ________________(imperfect tense verb) during the time of the previous night’s meeting. ________________(Name 1) later talked to ________________ (Name 2)’s partner for the other class, and learned that there had been no conflicting _______________ (noun 1) scheduled for the other class. _______________(Name 1), believing that _______________ (Name 2) may have lied about having a conflict, submitted a report to the Honor Board.
In an interview with the Investigative Team, _______________ (Name 1) explained that her goal was not to punish _______________ (Name 2), but to allow him to _______________ (verb) upon his actions and ______________ (verb) their effects on others. She also noted that the ______________ (noun) as a whole had not been functioning well, and no one had tried to initiate a discussion on improving team dynamics.

____________ (Name 2) was charged with violating the Respect for Others and Integrity clauses of the Honor Code. During a meeting with the Investigative Team, _______________ (Name 2) accepted responsibility for the charges and expressed regret for his actions. The Investigative Team _______________(past tense verb) the case to have merit for ______________ (plural noun), and thus sent the case to hearing.
As ______________(Name 2) accepted the responsibility, the hearing panel went straight to the ____________ (adjective) phase and decided ____________ (preposition) the following sanctions: a _____________ (noun) to _____________ (Name 1) addressing how his actions ________________(past tense verb) his group members, Professor _________________(Name 3) was asked to take the case into account in the grade given for the assignment, and _______________ (Name 2) was given a disciplinary warning.

Awesome Honor Board MadLibs

Posted on by

Cases before the Honor Board are wide and varied. Topics range from personal differences and academic dishonesty to misuse of public materials. Above all, the Honor Board is a means for Olin Community members to work out their differences safely and confidentially.

Find a friend and fill out the MadLibs in the paragraphs below to learn about a past case.

______ (name 1) submitted an Honor Board report regarding three of his/her roommates’ messiness in the suite lounge. Problems included old ______ (noun) left in the refrigerator and ______ (object 1) left out in the suite lounge for several ______ (duration of time). At one point, a ______ (noun) was left out for several ______ (duration of time). The ______ (same noun) melted and started running onto the ______ (location) and ______ (common Oliner possession) in the lounge. Another incident happened before break when ______ (name 1) found perishable ______ (plural noun) that were not his, such as ______ (noun) and ______ (different noun), left in the refrigerator. Everyone else left for break, and the mess was left for ______ (name 1) to ______ (transitive verb).

______ (name 1) decided to submit a report after his/her roommates repeatedly ignored his/her ______ (plural noun, exclamation or sound) to clean up the lounge. The case came to the Honor Board after ______ (name 1) ______ (past verb) rooms. The roommates’ actions were cited as ______ (present verb) of the Respect for Others clause of the Honor Code. In a hearing, the roommates agreed with the facts ______ (name 1) presented including the ______ (object 1) and refrigerator incident. They never fully realized how much it made ______ (name 1) feel ______ (emotion). They also admitted that their actions did not respect ______ (name 1) and have since tried to remain neater.

______ (name 1) was not seeking a sanction so much as a ______ (noun) for future situations, and the accused also ______ (past verb) that ways of handling similar situations should be devised. In particular, ______ (name 1) was interested in building a list of associated ______ (plural noun) for room damages, which he felt would be ______ (adjective) for him and other students. The accused agreed that this would be ______ (same adjective) and worked with ______ (name 1) and facilities to develop a reimbursement sheet for students.

This MadLib was loosely based on an Honor Board case from Spring 2008 about suite cleanliness. You can read the entire abstract in the Honor Drive (\\fsvs01\StudentGroups\HonorBoard\Abstracts).

Honor Board MadLibs

Posted on by

Cases before the Honor Board are wide and varied. Topics range from personal differences and academic dishonesty to misuse of public materials. Above all, the Honor Board is a means for Olin Community members to work out their differences safely and confidentially. Find a friend and fill out the MadLibs in the paragraphs below to learn about a past case.

______ (name 1), a student, was reported to the Honor Board for operating a/n ______ (adjective) Wireless Access Point (WAP) that interfered with the campus-wide wireless network and was ______ (adjective) by the campus Information Technology (IT) staff. The report was filed by ______ (name 2), a student, who had been ______ (verb ending in –ed) by the WAP. The Investigative Team determined that enough evidence was present to warrant a ______ (noun) before the Honor Board.

Continue reading →

Honor Board MadLibs

Posted on by

Cases before the Honor Board are wide and varied. Topics range from personal differences and academic dishonesty to misuse of public materials. Above all, the Honor Board is a means for Olin Community members to work out their differences safely and confidentially. Find a friend and fill out the MadLibs in the paragraphs below to learn about a past case.

Continue reading →

Honor Board MadLibs

Posted on by

Cases before the Honor Board are wide and varied. Topics range from personal differences and academic dishonesty to misuse of public materials. Above all, the Honor Board is a means for Olin Community members to work out their differences safely and confidentially. Find a friend and fill out the MadLibs in the paragraphs below to learn about a past case.

Continue reading →