Not sure how this differs from the forms signed upon acceptance, even doctors only administer privacy notes once. But it's not likely to hurt anything.Waldorf and Sauron wrote:How should the Honor Code Office be changed?
*There must be a rule of law, and students must be given a notice of standard practices before being brought into an interview. (Like you get a privacy notice before seeing a doctor. Something like a condensed version of this could work.
Agreed. But under whose perception?Waldorf and Sauron wrote:* Students should never be bullied or interrogated.
Agreed. But....Waldorf and Sauron wrote:* The Honor Code office should not talk to the press without the consent of the accused. BYU has even, in the past, publicized when people are "under review" by the Honor Code office, which is unacceptable.
this completely negates the previous. How long after a potential infraction before students are heading to the HCO to get a copy of so-and-so's interview? And how long after that until the press gets their hands on it? Even without the public release, how much harder is it going to be to get someone to admit an infraction when they know they're being filmed? Wasn't the gestaponess a bad thing?Waldorf and Sauron wrote:*The Honor Code office procedures—even interviews—should be recorded, and copies available to any student upon request.
Again, agreed. But as with the bullying, who is to arbitrate the case? Considering the stellar personal accountability record of our generation, how many cases wouldn't end in a complaint?Waldorf and Sauron wrote:*There should be a clear appeal or complaint procedure, where officers who overstep their bounds will be reprimanded and required to make formal apology.
I guess what's going through my head is the quote "who watches the watchers?" If the the organization that polices students' obedience to the honor code needs a watchdog group, who watches them? Who do we appeal to to assure that the attorneys and neutral parties are actually neutral? Even if we don't get into reductio ad absurdum, who funds the attorney's fees, and who mans the post of the watchdog's watchdog?Waldorf and Sauron wrote:*Students should be allowed to go through review with an attorney present, even if the attorney is not allowed to advocate.
*The burden of proof should be on the HCO, and there should be a neutral party to corroborate the validity of the evidence.
You could tap the BYU Law school and other student resources to fill the demand, but then the privacy drops to an even lower low. Might as well put BYUSA in charge....
