The idea that an honor violation must be serious enough for an accused student to be found guilty of an honor offense dates back to 1984. In 1997 language was added to the Honor Constitution which required that the seriousness of an alleged violation be looked at twice during an honor trial process. The first point at which seriousness is reviewed is during the Investigative Panel stage of the process. The Investigative Panel is comprised of three Honor Committee members and decides whether or not to formally accuse an investigated student of an honor offense. If the Investigative Panel finds the investigated student liable on all three accounts, the case is sent to trial.
Trials are the second place where seriousness of an honor offense is looked at.
The Honor Constitution requires that during trials jury panels take two separate votes to determine an accused student's guilt. The first vote is to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, an accused student has committed an intentional act of lying, cheating or stealing to the satisfaction of at least four- fifths of the panel. A second vote is then taken to determine if the intentional act is of such dishonest character that open tolerance thereof would be inconsistent with the community of trust, to the satisfaction of at least a majority of the panel. Citing a need for coordininating committee appointments, Student Council changed its bylaws to create a chairman for University committees. In a long debate last night, Student Council discussed a housing proposal by the Enrollment Committee to eliminate incoming first years' choice between McCormick Road and Alderman Road housing.