February 1995 Revision
Every community, either through accident or conscious design, adopts certain levels of accepted conduct. With unfortunate frequency, the standards adopted officially and unofficially by academic communities are founded on a "lowest common denominator" of human behavior. It is considered a fact of life at many colleges that intensive proctoring, special examination booklets, and energetic suspicion on the part of the faculty are required to achieve some semblance of honesty in the majority of students.
The Caltech community has had the privilege of disregarding these pessimistic traditions. The name given to the official -- and practiced -- ethical code of our community is the "Honor System." The Honor System embodies our mutual trust and respect.
The Honor System makes Caltech a better and more enjoyable place to work and live because it affords to each person within the Caltech community the trust and freedom that honesty merits. As such, only one guideline is necessary to protect our community: "No one shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community." Because of its nature, it must apply to all of the community, everywhere within the community. It is not restricted to transactions of a purely academic nature between students and faculty, but also binds students in their non-academic relations with any other member of the community.
On the other hand, the Honor System is not an administrative creation intended to ease the enforcement of university regulations or marginally decrease the chance of student cheating. It is a fundamental aspect of the Honor System that the responsibility students display in their conduct must be met by trust from others. An example of this is the official position on proctoring, which is not only held unnecessary but is discouraged under current faculty regulations. The bodies which deal with violations of the Honor System are also bound to promote an atmosphere of trust and confidence. As it should be, honesty is a two-way street at Caltech.
It must be stressed that the responsibility for the maintenance of the Honor System lies with each student. In particular, this responsibility includes determining any possible consequences of our actions. We have accepted such responsibility in the belief that only by regulating our own conduct can we successfully promote a high standard of individual integrity.
Therefore any necessary interpretation or enforcement is the duty of, and administered by, students themselves. However, for the Honor System's continued survival and improvement it is also necessary that faculty members take an active interest in its maintenance and well-being. For if the Honor System eliminates at Caltech the inconvenient encumbrances of suspicion--proctors, stringent regulations--it is also the case that faculty share the cost of any failures.
The following pages are meant to provide a starting point for understanding the Honor System as it relates to undergraduates. It is hoped that such information will enable faculty to help students maintain the health of the Honor System.
The Honor System is an agreement between members of the Caltech community, embodied in a single sentence:
This principle, while extremely short, is the sole basis of the Honor System. The key words are unfair advantage. Often, not taking unfair advantage is merely a matter of using common sense of showing respect and consideration for others and their privacy. But there are times when distinguishing between fair and unfair courses of action requires a considerable amount of analytic thought. It is when one loses the habit of such thought that one's actions may come into conflict with Honor System.
The Honor System governs every interaction among members of the Caltech community--in particular, the following discussion emphasizes those areas in which faculty are most likely to deal with undergraduates.
Under the Honor System students themselves must be responsible for understanding and seeking clarification of all exam conditions. Instructors new to take-home exams, however, must also realize that only detailed written instructions provide the necessary guidelines for what are self-administered tests. Just as students can be trusted, under the Honor System, to follow any instructions to the letter, so should instructors minimize confusion so that there is no room for differing interpretations of the directions.
Inconsistency is an enemy of this essential clarity. Instructors should make sure that all statements they make, both written and in-class, are not contradictory with respect to the exam conditions.
Why take-home exams? Caltech's mission, according to the Catalog, is the education of "creative scientists and engineers." Real-world scientific creativity is not proctored, supervised, or scheduled--the first and most important guarantor of scientific integrity is the scientist. The Honor System's contribution to academic independence, the establishment of an unsupervised honesty, is therefore indispensable to Caltech's notion of a full scientific education.
Take-home exams eliminate the need for time-consuming proctoring, supervision, and other secretarial labors. Students are not pressured to perform in an artificial environment (the en masse test administration) which corresponds to little future scientific work they will do.
In-class exams, therefore, are in most cases unnecessary, and represent in students' minds a manifestation of distrust on the instructor's part. It is, indeed, unclear what use these exams have. An instructor who suspects certain students of Honor System violations should bring his concerns to the appropriate body's attention; he should not penalize an entire class by altering normal exam practices.
Some in-class exams, for whatever reason specific to the class, are necessary. Proctoring by any means, however, is never suitable and always counter to the spirit of the Honor System.
Here too, consistency is essential. For example, in undergraduate laboratory courses, TAs have on occasion unfortunately disseminated inconsistent collab policies. Students cannot be expected to construct a mean collaboration policy from several different statements; TAs must be fully and consistently aware of the instructor's collab policy and instruct students accordingly.
One must realize, in addition, that the term "undergraduates" is underdescriptive. They are Caltech students, and are unusual in their creativity and activity. On occasion, this creativity extends to pranks. Each student-committed prank should be accompanied by a written note identifying the masterminds and any action needed to restore things to order.
Pranks, Ditch Day, and other undergraduate activities can be disruptive; but the associated inconvenience does not necessarily represent an unfair advantage.
Ideally, the Honor System should operate smoothly without intervention by any governing body. However, in practice, there are circumstances which prevent this. First, some individuals fail to abide by the Honor System and adequate measures must be taken to protect our community from them. Second, the intuitive sense of right and wrong upon which the Honor System so heavily relies does not always operate uniformly in complex situations. The Board of Control has been formed to help alleviate these problems. The Board, a committee of undergraduates, is part of the Associated Students of Caltech, Inc. (ASCIT), and is chaired by the ASCIT Vice President. The duties and procedures of the Board are outlined in the ASCIT bylaws. (See Bylaws.) It is composed of eleven students: the Chair and the Secretary, who do not vote; one representative elected from each of the seven undergraduate houses; and two representatives-at-large, appointed by the Board from the entire student body.
The Board currently deals with violations involving undergraduates, that is, situations in which an undergraduate has, either consciously or unconsciously, gained an unfair advantage over other members of the community. Each decision is made independently, as the Board does not act on precedent. Considering every case on its own merits, the Board tries to treat each person fairly and protect our community as a whole.
The following sections describe the investigation of a potential Honor System violation as it is dealt with by the Board of Control. The accompanying figure illustrates the procedural flow between the different stages of the investigation.
Note: the figure is temporarily missing.... Click here for Picture
Undergraduates are required to report suspected violations. The same requirement cannot be enforced by the Board among faculty--but their obligation is, if anything, as strong. Undergraduates cannot possibly assuage the concerns of faculty if the latter do not report their suspicions to the appropriate body. TAs, also, should be fully informed of the necessity of such reporting.
Vigilantism is discouraged. When a faculty member suspects that an Honor System violation has occurred, promptly giving an F for the assignment may seem a quick and easy solution. Such treatment, however, is damaging to the Caltech community--any case treated independently by faculty without investigation by the Board of Control will reduce the consistency and effectiveness of the Honor System. (If a student has committed several Honor System violations, and only the last is reported to the Board, it can only adjudicate that case. The Board is then forced to make a decision based on incomplete information.)
Suspected violations can be reported to any member of the Board of Control. The following numbers are also useful:
The Chair and Secretary of the Board of Control can always be contacted at (818) 395-6200 or campus extension x6200. The Secretary can also be reached at x6236.
In all cases, consider your personal responsibility to the Caltech community of which you are a vital part. It is far better to report a strong suspicion than to allow it to grow and compound. A case that is closed without a conviction vanishes from the records of all concerned. It can in no way prejudice the future of the student.
Some faculty are of the opinion that they should not report a suspected violation to the Board without fully elaborated, iron-clad evidence. This is not the case. It is the Board's responsibility to investigate any suspected violation (see below). While these instructors' wish to take the burden upon themselves is admirable, it is not necessary, and can slow considerably the process of reporting and investigation.
The Secretary will contact the necessary individuals and arrange for them to attend the preliminary hearings. If requested by the witness or defendant, another Board of Control member may attend the preliminary investigation in order to provide support or to explain the proceedings. In addition, if a defendant feels that the Chair or Secretary is unable to deliver an unbiased decision, then a request can be placed with the Dean of Students to have either individual temporarily replaced. Since the Board realizes that personal interaction is extremely valuable in deciding any Honor System issue, the nature of the suspected violation or specific details of the case will not be revealed until the actual interview. Throughout the interview process, it is the duty of any person interviewed to maintain absolute secrecy concerning the investigation.
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: You will be spoken to, by phone or in person, about the investigation. The Chair and Secretary will review with you the Board of Control's procedure and ask you for information about the case. The investigation is now confidential, and you should neither confront any involved students nor alter their assignment grades. Making private arrangements with students involved in an investigation introduces unfairness and inconsistency into the process.
At the conclusion of the interview process, the Chair will decide if the case will be considered by the full Board of Control. If so, the procedures of a full case meeting will be explained to the witness(es) and defendant(s). The minutes taken during the preliminary interviews will then be passed along for the entire Board's consideration. If the Chair decides to dismiss the case, the interviewee(s) will be informed that the case is closed, and the Secretary will destroy any minutes recorded. It is important to note that only when a case is completed may a defendant initiate discussion with others concerning his or her individual case, as outlined and regulated by the Board of Control bylaws. (See Bylaws.) Witnesses are bound to secrecy and can not divulge information concerning the investigation unless the defendant(s) initiate discussion. In all stages of the investigation, the Board strives to maintain the privacy of those interviewed and questioned.
If any individuals appearing before the Board feel that a particular member will be unable to render an unbiased judgment, they may ask the Chair of the Board or the Dean of Students to appoint a temporary replacement for that member. In addition, if any member of the Board of Control is uncomfortable with working on a particular case, he or she is expected to remove himself or herself for the duration of the case.
The Board is first presented with the case in abstract: no student names, no class names -- just a description of the violation involved. The Board may decide at this point that a full hearing is not appropriate, in which case all records of the preliminary investigation are eventually destroyed (see Bylaws), and no further action is taken. The Chair and Secretary take care to report only those cases to the Board that merit its attention; however, it is this stage which allows the full Board a preliminary consideration of the matter's importance.
The defendant is allowed to be accompanied by a companion while waiting (in a room provided) to be questioned by the Board. This companion is also sworn to secrecy about the case, even upon completion, as are the witnesses and the Board members themselves. All involved are asked not to reveal the meeting place of the Board. However, the defendant reserves the right to release information about the case upon completion of the investigation. If he or she chooses to do so, then the witnesses are also permitted to discuss the case. (See Section 3, subsections (l) and (r) of the Bylaws.)
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: If you have agreed to speak with the Board in person, you will be called and informed of the meeting place. After placing you under oath, the Board members will ask you questions relating to the case. (This is definitely an appropriate time to ask any questions you might have.)
The defendant may also request a "side-bar" with an individual member if he or she wishes to relate sensitive information that is difficult to tell to the entire Board. (See subsection (m) of Section VII of the Bylaws .)
The witnesses may request that their identities be kept from the defendant; the Board will make a sincere effort to do so, although it cannot always be guaranteed.
The following three subsections describe, in order, the three decisions that the full Board of Control will ultimately consider.
Privacy is important, but the Board of Control may ask questions of anyone who can provide useful information. Teaching assistants, classmates, professors, and roommates may be consulted. Every relevant resource is considered.
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: You will be asked to provide all relevant facts at your disposal concerning the case. These may include dates, times, or testimony of any actions observed.
A decision may be postponed for a few days if new evidence will be forthcoming. Deliberation continues until the members of the Board are satisfied. If a defendant has confessed, proceedings are often short. However, defendants may be convicted without a confession.
Defendants will be asked to explain any circumstances concerning the event or action in question. For example, in an academic case, this may include where and when a particular homework set or exam was completed, and what references were used. They may also be asked to explain their reasoning and thought processes on certain problems.
After discussion, a voting member of the Board may move to dismiss the case. Members of the Board may vote if favor of the dismissal if they find the evidence insufficient, or if they determine that a violation has not occurred. If the motion passes, the records of the case are eventually destroyed. (See Bylaws.) They are never brought to light unless new evidence arises concerning the same case.
Otherwise, a voting member of the Board may move to convict a defendant of an Honor System violation. The specifics of the violation are included in the motion. The Board votes, and the results are recorded in the minutes of the case. If the motion passes, the Board discusses further convictions or nullifications of the unfair advantage.
The decisions of the Board of Control are never intended as punishment. Nullification simply involves removing the unfair advantage gained. This may be accomplished through such actions as grade changes, monetary reimbursement, or letters of apology. In some situations, an Honor System violation may have no corresponding way to remove the unfair advantage. In these cases the Board may not recommend any steps for nullification, but this in no way diminishes the effects or seriousness of the violation.
For example, if a defendant has copied one isolated problem on an exam, the Board may decide to nullify the advantage by giving zero credit on that problem. However, if the copied problem allows the student to answer other questions or verify previous results, it is possible that credit will be removed for those problems as well.
The title commonly given to the third decision is rather important: protection of the community. This is not an attempt to punish, nor to deter. It is an attempt by the Board to establish whether or not the defendant is likely to commit a violation in the future, and if so, take appropriate action to protect the community. Three decisions of the Board are common enough to discuss.
All students convicted by the Board are required to speak with the Dean of Students after the case has been closed. This is known as "review" or "reprimand." In addition, records of the case are kept and are available to future Boards when determining protection of the community if the student is convicted again. This alteration in the status of a student is called "probation." If is important to note that these records are only made known after a future conviction has been made and nullification determined, and thus are not allowed to influence these first two decisions.
Suspension generally indicates that the Board is of the opinion that the defendant committed the violation because of immaturity or inordinate pressure and would benefit from some time away from Caltech. Time spent in the outside world often appears to relieve pressure and perhaps gives a student a better perspective on the Honor System and its advantages.
The most drastic action that the Board can take is to place a student on indefinite leave. The Board resorts to this only in situations where it feels that the defendant cannot live within the Honor System. This decision may or may not include a recommendation for persona non grata status (i.e., severing all ties with the Institute).
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: You will not be involved in this process, nor will you know its outcome unless the defendant chooses to tell you. Remember that you should divulge as little as possible about the case.
The Board is not restricted to these choices of action. It must be stressed that the decision is made in consideration of the defendant's demonstrated ability to abide by the Honor System. Although the gravity or magnitude of the violation committed is an indicator of such ability, it is not the only one. Two defendants convicted of similar violations could receive different measures for protection of the community if the Board felt that the likelihood of their committing another violation differed.
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: If the case does not result in a conviction, the investigation will end here. You will be informed that the case has been dismissed. Furthermore, the Chair and Secretary will make every effort consistent with confidentiality to make known to you what circumstances might have caused dismissal.
Upon completion of a hearing that results in a conviction, the Chair and Secretary of the Board will inform the Dean of Students of the details of the investigation and the outcome of the three decisions. It is the responsibility of the defendant to arrange a meeting with the Dean as soon as possible, usually the first working day following the final hearing. There are several purposes to this meeting. First, the Dean wants to know if the student felt comfortable with the proceedings of the case, the line of questioning, and his or her treatment throughout the case. This is done to ensure that students are not scared or intimidated during the case, and that they were treated with respect throughout the proceedings.
A second purpose of the meeting is to enable the Dean to review the final decision of the Board and to assess its implications. The Dean carefully explains the three decisions and discusses them with the student. At this stage the student may ask questions to clarify the implications of the decisions. Finally the Dean allows the student to voice any objections about the case of the final decision.
At the end of the meeting, the Dean decides whether or not to uphold the decision of the Board. The Board's decision, once delivered, is almost always final. However, the importance of the Dean must not be overlooked. It is the Dean's responsibility to make the final decision and to ensure that it is carried out. For these reasons, the meeting with the Dean is extremely important for both the student and the Board of Control.
If you are a witness, or have reported a case: After meeting with the Dean of Students, the Chair or Secretary will inform you by letter about the aspects of the case that concern you. If you are a witness, you will be informed when the case is closed but not told of any decisions; you will also be reminded that the case should remain confidential. If you have reported a case, you will be told when the case is closed; apprised of all relevant decisions; and informed of what grade changes need to be made in order to help the Board carry out its decision. Please note that witnesses and those who report cases are never apprised of the protection decision. The Chair and Secretary will make every effort to meet in person with those who report cases in order to discuss with them the case and its outcome.
When a case is completed and a violation of the Honor System has occurred, the official records of the case are kept in the Board files. It is important to understand that these files are strictly confidential. Only the Chair and Secretary have access for the purpose of reviewing previous convictions of a defendant. If a defendant has any prior convictions, the previous files may be reviewed by the entire Board to aid in determining the protection of the community. However, these minutes will only be revealed after all motions for convictions and nullification are resolved.
The records of the Board of Control are never intended for public viewing, especially by outside agencies unrelated to Caltech. However, there has been some concern with outside companies and government agencies that request information about disciplinary action from the Dean's Office for clearance purposes. It has always been the policy of the Dean and the Board to keep all proceedings and decisions completely internal as far as the law will allow. To this date, the only instances where a Board decision was revealed concerned students placed on involuntary leave of absence. The Dean considers this to be a disciplinary action and will admit to such if directly questioned. A student's transcript, however, will never show any record of a Board of Control investigation. Thus, no one except the Dean, the Board, and the student knows that a violation has occurred.
A: The Board is in charge of dealing with suspected Honor System violations by undergraduates. The Graduate Review Board is responsible for cases involving graduate students. The Graduate Review Board Chair may be reached at campus extension 6049. Problems involving faculty members, staff, or administration should be brought to the attention of the Student Grievance Committee. Currently, the ombudsman for the student grievance procedure is the Vice President for Student Affairs. The officers and representatives of the Board of Control have further information and can assist with pursuing these other procedures.
Q: What can a person be investigated for?
A: Cases in which the Honor System may have been violated by an undergraduate student are investigated by the Board of Control. Obvious examples include cheating on exams, breaking homework collaboration policies, and non-academic actions such as theft or harassment. However, the Honor System is not limited to examples such as these; any action which places a member of the Caltech community at an unfair disadvantage may result in an investigation. Honor System violations do not necessarily entail material disadvantage; invasion of privacy and actions that cause others emotional distress are examples. Actions against people who are not direct members of the Caltech community may eventually become Honor System offenses if they result in action being taken against the Caltech community. In cases regarding pranks or two-party incidents, the Board will frequently try to resolve the problem outside of a full hearing by having the parties involved reach some sort of satisfactory agreement. Before carrying out a prank, it is expected that the people responsible consider the outcome of their actions as well as the reactions of those being targeted.
Q: Why is the Board so secretive?
A: The Board of Control investigations and hearings are conducted in secret to protect the individuals being investigated. In order to prevent the formation of an unfair bias or prejudice against those appearing before the Board, extreme measures are taken to ensure that details about particular cases do not become known to the community. The results of Board votes are kept confidential to prevent any conflicts between defendants and individual Board members. The Board is also secretive about where and when it meets to prevent speculation about people seen entering or leaving the meeting place.
Q: What can the Board do to a person?
A: If a person is convicted of committing an Honor System violation by the Board of Control, the responsibility of the Board is to nullify whatever advantages were taken by the individual. This would include actions such as giving no credit for homework, or exam problems completed in violation of the Honor System or requiring the person to provide compensation if property had been damaged. After nullification, the Board considers whether the person is capable of living under the Honor System in the future. Among actions that may result from this are placing the student on probation, having the student take a leave of absence, or recommending the student for expulsion. See Protection of the Community for more information.
Q: Are the Board's decisions always carried out by the Dean?
A: The Board of Control acts as an advisory committee for the Dean, providing recommendations after investigating the case and coming to a decision. If the Dean feels that the Board's decision is not justified then he or she may choose to not follow it. However, it is only in very rare circumstances that the Dean will overrule a Board decision. Slightly more often he or she may ask the Board to reconsider its decision, though this too is rare. (See Statistics.)
Q: What records are kept of cases?
A: In the case of a conviction, the records will contain the names of the defendants and the decisions of the Board. The minutes will also contain a summary of the ideas and concerns that were brought up during the investigation by Board members as well as testimonies of those interviewed. The records will only be consulted in the event of a future conviction of one of the defendants, or for purposes of preparing abstracts or computing statistics. If no conviction results, the evidence that accumulated during the investigation will be kept by the Board Secretary in case the investigation is re-opened. However, when a new Secretary is elected, all the evidence of the investigations that did not result in a conviction will be destroyed by the outgoing Secretary.
Q: Why do Board of Control investigations take so long?
A: Preliminary investigations must include interviews with all relevant defendants, witnesses, and faculty members; full hearings require many hours of thoughtful deliberation. Therefore, it often happens that cases take a term or more to be decided. Such delay is unavoidable and reflects the difficulty of reaching decisions; the necessity of accommodating defendants and witnesses; and the demanding academics of Caltech life. At every stage of the case, Chair and Secretary will inform the relevant faculty members of the investigation's progress in as full detail as possible.
Q: What should I do if I suspect an undergraduate of an Honor System violation?
A: Two important principles--confidentiality and presumption of innocence--are intimately associated with the Honor System. Most consonant with the latter principle is for the student's grade to be recorded as if no potential violation existed. The faculty member should then report the relevant details to the Board of Control; and confidentiality should govern future interaction with the student. That is, no details of the investigation should be made known to the student or other members of the community, nor should private arrangements be made with students involved.
The following statistics were compiled from records of the Board of Control.
| 88-89 | 89-90 | 90-91 | 91-92 | 92-93 | 93-94 | 94-95 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases Dismissed by Chair | 5 | 4 | 28 | 5 | 22 | 5 | 6 |
| Cases Referred to Other Body | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Cases Dismissed by Board | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Cases Leading to Conviction | 12 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 22 | 14 | 10 |
| Cases Upheld by Dean | 12 | 10 | 13 | 11 | 18 | 14 | 10 |
| Hours Spent in Prelims | 59.5 | 69 | 67.5 | 80 | 180 | 15 | 43.5 |
| Hours Spent in Hearings | 105.5 | 66.5 | 62.5 | 71 | 108 | 33 | 41 |
Abstract 1
Student A used the account number of a campus organization with which he had no affiliation to make long-distance phone calls. The organization complained to the phone office, and they discovered who made the calls. The bill came to $80.
When asked how he obtained the account number, Student A explains that it was on a piece of paper in the library of a student house. The paper was part of a pile of other papers, and it did not explain who the number belonged to; it merely described how to make the call. Student A says that he did not know who was getting billed, and he didn't think about it very much. He was sure, now that he is thinking about it, that it was an Honor System violation, but at the time he just thought he was getting a "freebie" and didn't worry about it.
Student A is convicted of an Honor System violation for placing long-distance calls using an account number that he had no right to use. For nullification of the unfair advantage, it is decided that Student A should pay the $80 back to the campus organization.
Student A does not seem to be a malicious person. He admits what he did was wrong, and he doesn't try to justify it. No further action beyond reprimand and probation seems necessary for protection of the community. Student A is read the decision, and he is cautioned to devote more thought to his actions in the future. The Chair and Secretary meet with the Dean of Students and relate the details of the Board's decisions for violation, nullification, and protection. The Dean then meets with Student A and after discussing the events and case hearing, the Dean approved the Board's recommendations.
Abstract 2
Two students turned in identical homework sets on two occasions in a non-collaboration class. The similarity was not noticed during the grading. After the course was over, Student C, noticing that Student B had received a higher score for similar work, went to complain to the teaching assistants (T.A.'s). The T.A.'s then noticed the extreme similarity between the homeworks and referred the matter to the Board
Student B claims that he finished the first set three days before it was due. He started working on it the day after it was handed out, and then asked the T.A.'s for help over the next two days. He got the wording for his answer from the book, from the T.A.'s, and from a similar example that had been done in class. Student B seems nervous, and says he had already discussed the case with the T.A.'s and they would vouch for the fact that his wording on the homework did reflect discussion with them held soon after the assignment had been given. Student B says that Student C had borrowed his notebook without permission after the term was over in order to compare their homework scores. B claims that C had also borrowed his class notes with his permission for about half the lectures of the term. This might account for the similarity of the wording.
Student C explains that he had borrowed Student B's lecture notes for the two homework sets in question. He did not finish either set until the night before it was due, and he had worked alone in a building on campus. When pressed to explain why there were no erasures on his paper and no points on his hand-drawn graph, C claims that he did most of his work on scratch paper, and although he admits things look suspicious, he maintains that he did his work independently. He does admit to entering Student B's room after the room was over to see how many points B had received.
The Board reviews the evidence again very carefully, and determines that there is no way the two sets of homework papers could represent independent work. The wording on the papers is compared with that in the book and in the notebooks, and those members of the Board who currently or previously had taken the course particularly feel that the similarities between the papers are in no way accounted for in the class notes or textbook.
Although it seems incredible that C would cheat on two homework sets and then have the nerve to complain about the grading to the T.A.'s, there is no other plausible explanation. The T.A.'s did verify that Student B had consulted with them and had completed his homework early.
Student C is convicted of an Honor System violation for copying two homework sets in a non-collaboration class, and for lying under oath to the Board. In order to nullify the advantage, Student C is given zero credit on both homework sets. C seems to be overwhelmingly preoccupied with grades. He received an A in the course, yet he tried to get more points from the T.A.'s on these two homework sets in order to get an A+. The violation was committed deliberately and for purely selfish motives. Based on student C's failure to recognize his responsibility to the community, a motion is approved to place Student C on indefinite leave of absence from the Institute. Student C is informed of the decision and that he must meet with the Dean of Students after the Chair and Secretary relate the details of the Board's decisions. Later, the Dean discusses the course of events and the case hearing with C and afterwards decides to approve the Board's recommendations.
ARTICLE III--THE HONOR SYSTEM
SECTION 1. No one shall take unfair advantage of any member of the Caltech community.
SECTION 2. The Honor System as stated in Section 1 shall be the fundamental principle of conduct of all members of the Corporation. It shall apply to all scholastic activities as well as to relations with other members of the Caltech community.
ARTICLE IV--OFFICERS
SECTION 4. Office of the Vice President: The Vice President shall, during absences of the President, assume the duties of that office. He shall act as chairman of the Board of Control. He shall assist the President in coordinating the policies and activities of the Associated Students. His primary responsibility shall be to insure the continuance of the Honor System among the students. He must be either a junior or a senior in the fall term immediately following his election.
SECTION 12. Office of the Secretary of the Board of Control: The specific duties of the Secretary of the Board of Control shall be determined by the Board of Control.
ARTICLE VII--THE BOARD OF CONTROL
SECTION 1--PURPOSES AND DUTIES. The Board of Control shall review all cases of alleged violations of the Honor System and shall make recommendations to the Dean of Students for action in those cases in which a violation is found to have been committed. All defendants will be asked if they wish the Associate/Assistant Dean of Students to participate in the Dean's review of the Board's recommendations. It shall be the duty of the Chairman to see that the student body is informed of the policies of the Board of Control. Violations of the Honor System may be brought to the attention of the Board by any member of the Caltech Community.
SECTION 2--MEMBERSHIP. The Board of Control shall consist of the Vice President of the Corporation, who shall act as chairman, and the following members: the Secretary of the Board of Control, two members appointed by the Board of Control, and seven members, one elected in each of the seven undergraduate student Houses.
(a) The representatives from the Houses shall be elected each year in accordance with the election procedures determined by the House.
(b) A candidate may declare his candidacy in any House, but all students shall vote in the House with which they are affiliated at the time of the election. Students not affiliated with any House may register to vote in the House of their choice. Students not registered nor affiliated with a House at the time of the election may not vote.
(c) The Board of Control shall appoint two members from the undergraduate student body at large for a term of office not to exceed one year. All applicants must be interviewed by the Board of Control.
(d) Only registered undergraduates may serve on a case of the Board of Control.
(e) In the event that a Board of Control member fails to register or takes a leave of absence at any time during his term of office, said member shall retire from that office immediately.
(f) In the event that a Board of Control representative from the Houses retires before his term of office expires, the House shall elect a replacement for the remainder of the term of office in accordance with the election procedures determined by the House.
(g) These representatives at large shall be chosen after ASCIT elections but before the swearing in of the new officers. They shall assume office at the time the Vice President is installed.
(h) In the event that a Board of Control representative at large retires before his term of office expires, the Board of Control shall appoint a replacement from the undergraduate student body at large for the remainder of the term of office.
SECTION 3--RULES OF PROCEDURE.
(a) When a suspected violation of the Honor System is reported to the Board, the Chairman or Secretary, and one other Board member will conduct a preliminary investigation to examine all relevant facts. They may require any persons involved to discuss their knowledge of any information concerning the case. The Chairman and Secretary will determine whether or not the case will be brought to a hearing of the full Board.
(b) When a case is brought to a hearing of the full Board, the Board will make three decisions:
1. Whether or not an Honor System violation has been committed.
2. How to nullify the advantage that has been taken.
3. How to protect the Caltech Community.
(c) All persons appearing before the Board at a hearing or a preliminary investigation will be informed of the reasons for their presence.
(d) Persons who feel that they have been unfairly treated by any members of the Board or that their personal rights have been violated may make appeals to the Dean of Students.
(e) The preliminary investigators shall not have a vote on the Board.
(f) Seven (7) voting members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.
(g) In case of absence or disability of the Chairman, the Board shall select a temporary chairman from among their number who, while acting as Chairman, shall not have a vote. In the case of absence of the Secretary, the Chairman shall appoint a temporary Secretary, who shall not have a vote, from among those who are present or past Board members (see subsection (j)).
(h) If a Board member feels unable to render an unbiased judgment in a particular case, that member should disqualify himself. Furthermore, no member of the Board shall sit in judgment of his own case.
(i) If a defendant feels that particular Board members are unable to render an unbiased judgment, a request may be made to the Chairman or the Dean that those members not sit on the case.
(j) If made necessary by subsections (g), (h), or (i) in order to maintain a full quorum of the Board, the Board shall reserve the right to ask any past members of the Board of Control to serve on a case, contingent on a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the remaining voting Board members. All those serving on a case are bound to secrecy as stated in subsection (s).
(k) Any person asked to attend a preliminary investigation may be accompanied by any Board member of his choice.
(l) A defendant attending a hearing of the full Board may be accompanied by any one member of the Caltech community of his own choosing, to keep him company during waiting periods outside of the hearing. This person may not witness any part of the actual hearing, will be bound by secrecy as set forth in subsection (s) for all witnesses, and must not interfere with the normal proceedings of the Board.
(m) A defendant attending a hearing of the full Board may ask the Chair at any time for permission to hold a short, private recess with a Board member of the defendant's choice. Any new information pertaining to the case revealed in this conference will be shared with the full Board. The member shall remain able to vote on the case.
(n) A three-fourths (3/4) vote of the voting members of the Board present shall be necessary for a decision of the Board.
(o) No decision of a previous Board shall be revoked, unless the Board is convinced that new evidence or changed conditions change the status of the original case, or upon recommendation of the Dean.
(p) Any records of the proceedings of the Board are to be kept only by the Secretary. The official minutes of proceedings resulting in convictions shall be kept by the Secretary in a minute book of the Board of Control. This book shall be kept under lock and key by the Dean of students. The Chairman and Secretary shall have the sole power to get the minute book from the Dean and shall do so only on official business of the Board. All other records shall be destroyed by the Secretary.
(q) The official minutes of proceedings resulting in convictions shall include the names of all persons concerned, the decisions reached by the Board with corresponding vote tallies, a description of any previous convictions, as well as the names of the members of the Board present.
(r) The Board of Control has the right to collaborate with the Graduate Review Board, the Dean of Students, and the Director of Residence Life.
(s) All those appearing before the Board, and the Board itself, are expected to maintain absolute secrecy regarding case meetings of the BOC. Divulgence of any of the proceedings shall be considered a violation of the Honor System. Should the defendant wish to discuss the issues involved in his case with others, after his case has been completed, he may do so at any time, provided no portion of the case that concerns other defendants is made public without the permission of those persons. However, once the defendant initiates discussion, witnesses in the case are no longer bound to secrecy. If, in a particular case, the Board shall deem it wise to make known the proceedings of the Board, the Chairman shall be empowered to, upon resolution of the Board, to convey such information without disclosing the names or identities of any persons involved.
(t) When a case is reported to the Board by some member of the Community, the Board will inform this member that the case is being considered. If any grade changes or status changes are necessary, the appropriate faculty member or administrator will be notified of the need for such changes at the close of the case.
(u) OATH. The oath taken by all persons appearing before the Board of Control shall be: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
This booklet is a resource for all members of the Caltech community--in particular, for faculty members. The material herein is an educational tool for those living under the Honor System, providing examples of its application. In addition, current procedures and practices of the Board of Control are described. The legal obligations of students and of the Board of Control are outlined in the Caltech Catalog and in the Bylaws of the Associated Students of the California Institute of Technology, Incorporated.
Acknowledgments
This publication has been prepared and published with the joint cooperation of the Associated Students of the California Institute of Technology, Incorporated, the 1994-95 Board of Control, and the Office of the Dean of Students. Its preparation has depended heavily on previous publications of ASCIT's Board of Control and upon material gained through their records.
Special thanks are due the Office of the Dean of Students for its continuing support of our endeavors.
The manner of publication and format of this booklet has been designed to facilitate change. Only continued comment and criticism will enable us to best meet the needs of the community. Comments should be directed to:
or to any member of the Board of Control. Confidential messages can always be left at (818) 395-6200 (campus extension 6200). All comments will be gratefully received and suggestions for change will be seriously considered.