During the Renewing Democracy summit on April 6, student attendees were handed pieces of paper from Rhonna Bollig, the Administrative Coordinator of the Honor Code, preemptively threatening honor code charges of disorderly conduct and/or failure to comply with a College administrator, handled through administrative resolution, and removal from the event, in the case that students disrupted the event. Several students disrupted speakers in protest, despite the threat of Honor Code charges. These students were escorted out of the Summit and received Honor Code charges. Handling these cases through administrative resolution has permanently damaged student trust in the sanctity of the Honor Code. College Government objects to administration’s decision to supersede Honor Code Council by going straight to administrative resolution. It is important to clarify that College Government’s objection is neither to the removal of the students from the event nor to the fact that they received Honor Code charges, but specifically to the use of administrative resolutions in these cases.

The students charged in these cases were not afforded the same rights that are typically afforded to charged students. They were not given a meeting with the administrative coordinator. Usually, a meeting time is included with the letter given to students. This meeting is intended to explain specific Honor Code processes to students and give them a chance to prepare for what is next. Because students weren’t given an appointment, they were not informed about what an administrative resolution would actually look like. Typically, a minimum of five days notice is given so that students have time to prepare for their hearing or resolution, but these students had between one and two days. For some who celebrated a religious holiday during that time, this lack of notice meant that they were unable to devote the time that they would usually put into a situation like this. For example, they needed to coordinate with professors and/or mentors and secure an advisor within this time. During a typical hearing process, students have the opportunity to recuse members of a hearing panel who they do not feel could make an unbiased decision. However, in these cases, students were not afforded the opportunity to recuse anyone in the administrative resolution. Finally, the Code of Conduct contradicts itself regarding whether the students have a right to appeal the findings of their resolution. On page 11, the Code states: “As part of any Honor Code resolution process, the Charged Party … can appeal the finding of a hearing on stated grounds as set forth below.” Further down that same page, it states “Any finding and/or sanction(s) determined by administrative resolution are not eligible for appeal.” This is a clear contradiction in that an administrative resolution is an ‘Honor Code resolution process,’ so the first statement would indicate that it can be appealed. The second statement says that it cannot, but the inherent contradiction creates a gray area that further erodes student rights in the process.

It is only with the addition of the student Code of Conduct this year that the deans explicitly gained the ability to take over the Honor Code process from the beginning — in this case even preempting the alleged Honor Code infraction itself. The Honor Code process represents a collaboration between administration, faculty, and students, wherein decisions are intended to be made by a panel representing all three groups. This use of the administrative resolution process sets a dangerous precedent for future responses to student demonstrations. Unless the student presents an immediate danger to themselves or others, the facts of the case would require violating the privacy of the student or others, or the student requests it, cases should follow regular Honor Code processes. The Code of Conduct ought to be amended to guarantee all students the right to a hearing barring special exceptions, and we should all remember that the Honor Code was originally created to protect the rights of students. 

College Government Cabinet condemns this use of the administrative resolution for what it is: a brazen encroachment by administration on the powers delegated to students and faculty that sets a dangerous precedent for the future of free speech at Wellesley.