Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

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.

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:* Students should never be bullied or interrogated.

Agreed. But under whose perception?

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.

Agreed. But....

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:*The Honor Code office procedures—even interviews—should be recorded, and copies available to any student upon request.

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:*There should be a clear appeal or complaint procedure, where officers who overstep their bounds will be reprimanded and required to make formal apology.

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:*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.

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?

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....

Are students allowed to tape their hearings? I think that should be allowed, especially when they are innocent. That way if something crosses the line, the "infractor" can take the tape straight to Peggy Fletcher Stack.

Hypatia: I'm not sure if you noticed, but I sent your a private message in response to your question. (Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it.)

Tao wrote:

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:*The Honor Code office procedures—even interviews—should be recorded, and copies available to any student upon request.

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?

I should have used more emoticons here. Actually, this sentence was the victim of a poor revision. I meant that any student interviewed should be able to access their own recording, not that all recordings should be up for grabs.

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.

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?

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....

Students would have to pay for an attorney if they wanted one. As it is, attorneys are not allowed, unless the attorney is also your direct relative. As for the rest, good questions. I'm interested in hearing others thoughts.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Students would have to pay for an attorney if they wanted one. As it is, attorneys are not allowed, unless the attorney is also your direct relative. As for the rest, good questions. I'm interested in hearing others thoughts.

Are non-attorney direct relatives allowed to sit in?

Nope. They are not. At least for the stages I was in. I specifically asked them if I would be allowed any sort of representation (I come from a family of lawyers and they were all chomping at the bit to come help me with this one) but they just chuckled and said it wasn't a legal matter. However, one is fully entitled to sue the school once the trial is over (in which case they would need representation) or sue the accuser (which is something I'm currently putting together).

Sorry, just to clarify, I was told I would be allowed zero representation whatsoever. "That's why there are two of us here," was the explanation. Yeah...as if two coworkers working for the HCO are going to be impartial.

Hypatia wrote:However, one is fully entitled to sue the school once the trial is over (in which case they would need representation) or sue the accuser (which is something I'm currently putting together).

Wow. Good luck! It would be nice for the HCO to have to answer publicly for this type of behavior (although I suppose that won't happen if you settle out of court).

*retracted

Sorry for changing the subject, but . . .

52 points.

Wow.

Defy V wrote:Sorry for changing the subject, but . . .

52 points.

Wow.

So that's why I could hear cheering from the other room when I was in the Testing Center music room...

I wish I could've seen that game. That is...wow.

Defy V wrote:Sorry for changing the subject, but . . .

52 points.

Wow.

Actually, I think you're technically bring the subject back on topic.

Sorry for bringing this up, but . . .

54 points.

Wow.

Yeah...I don't think the selection people are going to be very nice to us tomorrow.

(I don't really follow basketball. I am not sure if "wow" is because 52/54 is bad or good.)

52 points from one player is wonderful.
54 points from one team is not so good. Especially when the other team got 72.

The subject line now refers to BYU's seed in the tourney as opposed to their overall ranking.

Subject re-appropriated again.

Hey, President Obama picked BYU to make it to the Sweet Sixteen...now THAT's change I can believe in!!!

(Sorry I tend to start threads and not read all the replies. I have thousands of unread emails ... I just don't spend the kind of time online that I used to. Getting married this month, going to my best friend's wedding, needing to park my bum in front of the TV for March Madness, weather finally nice, reading actual books...message boards/blogging becomes more of a chore.)

Heh, I saw that! Apparently, he is also a Jimmer fan.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstv/51 ... u.html.csp