The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 32, Ed. 1 Friday, April 18, 1980 Page: 4 of 40
forty pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
case sparks Honor Council revisions...
continued from page I
being unfair. The accused
requested him to excuse himself
and he said only he should
determine whether he should
excuse himself and didn't."
James did leave, according to
Cooper, but "it took some
convincing."
Other problems complicated the
case further. The tape of the first
trial was garbled. The nature of the
accusation, according to Cooper,
required it to be paraphrased at the
hearing since by its nature it would
have revealed the identity of the
accuser, which cannot be done
under Honor Council rules.
"To,my mind, the case should
never have been brought to trial
just because it was totally
unpresentable," Cooper said.
In addition, the entire hearing
procedure was confused. "The
chairman completely blew
procedure out the window and the
whole hearing-trial deal got
confused and as a result it caused
us an infinite amount of trouble,"
he said.
Also, Cooper felt the
circumstances surrounding the
reopening of the trial may have
been questionable. "How can a
council, after it has convicted
someone, reopen a trial?" he asked.
"At the reopening of the trial, the
chaAnan steps down due to
prejudice. It seems you have a
continuous trial with two different
casts of jurors."
James, however, pointed out
that "the council has not required
that the same people be involved
[in a reopening of a case] because
on a very reasonable basis, it is
very feasible for a case to be
opened a year or two later."
What makes a case?
Finally, to some, there was not
enough material evidence to
sustain a conviction. "To my mind,
this case lacked conclusive
material evidence," said Michael
Brookings, ombudsman for the
case. "There was no hard evidence.
The test didn't prove anything
conclusively. It was one person's
word against another's."
Gonzalez added, "Another
problem, and I think it extends
beyond that case, is that a guilty
verdict was given without there
being absolute, positive evidence."
One faculty member, Dr. Jeffrey
Kurtzman, spoke with the council
about its handling of this case last
semester. "In the case I knew
about," he said, "there was no
material evidence. The council
came to a unanimous guilty verdict
based on no evidence."
"Material evidence should
almost be required for a case to be
considered," Brookings said,
"because, otherwise, you come to
the point where $ it's simply
accusation versus accusation. If
you sustain a case on that, it
renders the council nothing more
than a kangaroo court."
He added, "Had I known what I
know now, I would have gone to
the accused and said, 4To my mind,
the deliberation was defective and
it is grounds for an appeal.' "
Brookings later said, after
discussing the matter with James,
that such an action would be
inappropriate for ah ombudsman,
especially with the checks in the
new appeals system.
James explained, "The
ombudsman is considered by the
c&irtcil to address only procedural
errors. In that light, and since the
council has always demanded that
the ombudsman never address
himself to points of evidence or to
guilt or innocence, it would be
inappropriate for an ombudsman
to address a point of defective
deliberation."
James added, "If ten reasonable
people feel that there is enough
evidence, no matter what form
that evidence takes, to find
someone guilty, then the person, in
this system, as in our civil system,
defines them as being guilty."
James refused, however, to
comment on any specific details of
the case. "Just as a matter of
general policy, I am not going to
say anything about that case — or
any case," he said.
Eventually, Proctor Sam
Carrington overturned the case on
an appeal point that there was
insufficient evidence. Several other
appeal claims made on points of
procedural error were denied by
Carrington.
"In my mind, the case was
satisfactorily resolved — in the
end," Brookings said. "It may not
be considered satisfactorily
resolved for the accused, but I
don't think there's anything that
would do that short of axing the
Honor Council, probably."
Cooper, however, disagreed. "It
was farcical disposition. The case
was overturned, but not on
procedural grounds as it should
have been, but for insufficient
evidence. The case was riddled with
procedural errors." Cooper said
the tape of the first trial where
most of the evidence was presented
was garbled, and thus the proctor
did not hear all of the evidence.
What is the ombudsman's role?
In addition, Brookings, who was
the second ombudsman on the case
and did not hear the first trial, was
working on his first case. Thus, his
preparation for his position may
have been important.
"I was afraid to speak up in the
deliberation because I didn't know
if that was allowed," Brookings
said.
Referring to his training, he
said, "Vince James talked,
explained and then I went to the
book to see what the official
position of the ombudsman was,
which is pretty vague."
"Right now," Gonzalez said,
"ombudsmen get very little, if any
training—it's like on-the-job
training. They should receive more
formal training."
"He [James] wasn't real sure
what the position of the
ombudsman was," Brookings
added.
"I propose," he said, "that new
ombudsmen have an old
ombudsman serve with them for at
least the first two cases minimum.
That's going to be especially
important if the role of the
ombudsman is expanded" (as is
currently being discussed by the
council on the suggestion of
Proctor E. C. Holt last week [see
Thresher, April 10]).
Brookings suggested the
ombudsman's role should be
expanded so that he° becomes "a
legal advisor as to the rules" for the
accused. The current system in
which the chairman acts as
procedural advisor to the accused
is inadequate, he says. "Deriving
from what I knew about the Honor
Council before I became an
ombudsman, I don't think I would
have trusted the chairman — no
matter what it says in the rulebook,
because he's the one that heads the
investigation; he's the one asking
the questions that hurt," he said.
"By nature, in asking these
questions, he becomes an
antagonist, and there's no way he
can get out of it."
James said the role of the
when accused, can find out what
procedures are, can present
themselves as best they can, so they
do not feel they are being attacked
by ten people who are looking for
their guilt."
Nevertheless, some people
believe that there are members of
the council who may well be doing
"Appeals have
been a definite
problem. There was a case where everyone knew they
were biased...it was difficult to turn around and be asked
to be objective about the appeal."
ombudsman would be expanding
somewhat to perform just such a
role. "By having the ombudsman
available [to answer questions
during all proceedings], the aspect
of 'Here's someone else standing
with me' is a great psychological
advantage," he said.
Nobody expects...
Many council members agreed
with the idea that the proceedings
are psychologically intimidating.
Cooper said that coming before
the council is "probably one of the
most nerve-shattering things you
can go through."
"I remember going into my first
case," Gonzalez said, "and during
the deliberation, getting up to sit in
the accused's chair, which is
centered in the middle of a semi-
circle and I sat there and looked at
everybody else. I was pretty
intimidated — and I wasn't even
the accused."
That intimidation may have the
effect of making the procedures
more adversarial meetings than the
friendly investigations which
council opinion would have them
to be. "The council sees itself as
conducting an investigation in a
friendly manner," Cooper said,
"and yet, probably one of the most
intimidating things that can
happen to you is to get a phone call
at five in the afternoon and
somebody says, 'Hi, I'm the
chairman of the Honor Council
and we'd like to talk to you about a
possible accusation.' "
"In my opinion, it is an
adversary proceeding — you sit
before ten people having been
accused of cheating — that's an
adversarial position," said
Kurtzman. "When I went to talk
with them, the impact of the
environment was adversarial."
James said, "In the way the
council is structured, the council is
non-adversarial. The fact that one
person may or may not be familiar
with the proceedings and has to sit
in front of ten people — to him, it
makes it feel advesarial, simply
because he does not know the
procedures. What we've been
doing is breaking our backs to give
the accused every possible
resource, to baby-feed, to spoon-*
feed them procedures."
"We want to provide the accused
with_ every opportunity, every
resource that we can, so a person,
just that.
There is one person on the
council that I have never seen vote
'innocent,'" Ness said. "There's an
attitude of 'guilty until proven
innocent' among some of the older
members."
"I think there is a problem with
people who serve on the council for
too long," Cooper said. "The
Honor Council is probably the
most cynical group on campus
toward the Honor System because
day in and day out, people come in
and say, 'I didn't cheat' and if they
convict him, they are convinced
this person lied to them."
"After hearing trial after trial, it
may be easy to develop the attitude
that anyone who claims to be not
guilty is probably lying," said
Kurtzman.
"If any council member really
whole-heartedly thinks that, they
have no purpose being on the
council, period," James
contended.
Ellis agreed. "That's a very bad
thing to be accusing people of. I
feel if someone thinks that, it
would be their duty to ask that
person to resign," he said.
Ness also feels there is a similar
attitude towards conducting the
deliberation. She contends there is
"browbeating." She argues that the
way the deliberation is structured
puts "on the spot" the people who
voted not guilty in a case, forcing
them to defend their vote. "There
aren't many people who will stand
up to nine people," she said.
"I really didn't want to get into it
another year, but I went to the first
meeting and the composition of
the council scared the hell out of
me," Cooper said. "I knew from
experience that the people on this
council don't have the kind of
nerve to stand up in a 9-1 situation
and defend someone's innocence
against convinced people."
Can students judge fairly?
Kurtzman sees problems such as
these as- examples of his basic
contention. "The basic problem is
the judicial inexperience of a
student Honor Council. The
question is whether the council can
fully understand the implications
of its procedures for ensuring a fair
trial and whether the council has
the ability to grasp when
something has gone wrong," he
said.
Cooper, Gonzalez, and Ness
each said they felt that some form
of training would be useful.
Currently, the only training any
council member gets is by
observing cases. "I definitely think
it's adequate," Ellis contested,
adding "American jurors aren't
trained."
New Senior Representative
Charles Mays concurred. "I don't
know how much training you can
do. I don't know if you can have a
seminar on the Honor Council."
James said he felt literally
anyone at Rice University should
be able to serve on the council.
"The constitution had better be
written in terms that everyone can
understand. You had better be able
to read it and know exactly how
the council is supposed to operate
and what its guidelines are," he
said.
Modest proposals
Most council members said they
felt the changes proposed this
semester would solve at least some
of those problems.
"The changes are needed,"
Smith said. "We have to try them.
But it will depend on the people on
the council to make them work."
"They certainly are an
improvement," Kurtzman said.
Some, however, .. said they
thought more has to be done.
Gonzalez suggested, "If I could
see a change, it would be that the
accused be allowed to have some
kind of defender, other than the
ombudsman, whether it be a
lawyer, another student, perhaps a
faculty advisor; I don't know. I
don't think the defendant should
have to face the ten-member
council by himse£"
Cooper had * more radical
suggestion to remedy what he
understands to be the council's
problems. "I would consider, as a
sort of modest proposal, that
maybe the solution is to get twelve
random students and have a core
council with a student jury, so
getting diverse opinions wouldn't
be such a problem. I think, in a lot
of ways, this would leave you
better off then under the present
system. You would have people
who were a little less cynical in
their views towards whether or not
people cheat and you would have
more students involved in the
Honor Council, more people
aware of whether the Honor
System works or doesn't work," he
said.
Regardless of what changes may
be made, Kurtzman sees problems
inherent in any student Honor
Council. "The only way I can see us
addressing the problem of
inadequate judicial experience and
of the council tending to become
numb to individuals is by the
presence of some kind of court
(faculty) advisor or court officer to
comment and inteiject." He
pointed out that a similar system
was tried a few years ago and
worked well for the council, but
was rejected by the student body in
a constitutional referendum
because students feared a
professor serving in such a position
would be prejudiced against
students he saw in his classes who
had appeared before the Honor
Council.
"The faculty members would
have to be selected carefully,"
Kurtzman said. "Anyone who
could handle the judicial process
well should be able to handle such
a situation."
The Rice Thresher, April 18, 1980, page 4
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Muller, Matthew. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 67, No. 32, Ed. 1 Friday, April 18, 1980, newspaper, April 18, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245439/m1/4/: accessed June 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.