Honor Council

The Honor System at Mercer University

Academic integrity at Mercer is maintained through the Honor System. Mercer's Honor System demands of each student the responsibility for his/her own honest comportment and assumes the corollary responsibility that each one will report any violations of the Honor Code about which he/she has information.

During the spring of 1954, College of Liberal Arts students recognized a need for an Honor System on campus. Following extensive deliberation, a petition was presented by the student body president, Joseph Hendricks, CLA 1955, to the students. After a general election, the student body adopted the form of a pledge to be signed by each student on every examination.

The first Honor Council consisted of eight members (the president, vice president, and secretary of the student body and the president of each class) and had the responsibility of enforcing the Honor Code. Then, in 1956, the council was changed to consist of nine persons who were not necessarily class or student government officers.

Since 1956, there have been other significant changes. An amendment was passed which requires the reporting of cheating or other academic dishonesty as well as the pledge that one has not given or received aid. This code is now central to the Honor System. Every student consents to the following Honor Code upon entering Mercer University:

"I pledge myself to neither give nor receive aid during tests or for any individual assignments or papers, nor to use any information other than that allowed by the instructor. I further pledge that I will not allow to go unreported to the proper persons any violation of the Honor System and that I will give true and complete information to the Honor Council."

In addition, each student is personally responsible for knowing the rights and obligations as set forth in the Honor System printed in The Lair. The student is also expected to cooperate completely and to participate fully in the Honor System. Students who refuse to accept the Honor Code will be denied admission.

Definition of Mercer Honor System

The Honor System, based on the Honor Code, is established, interpreted, and administered by the student body. The aim of the Honor System is to promote complete freedom within the academic community—a freedom that is based on trust between students and faculty. The Honor Council, in its role as the judiciary body for the System, supports that freedom and guards that trust.

At Mercer University, each student enrolling in a class offered by an undergraduate school or college on the Macon Campus subscribes to the System, whether during the regular academic year, the summer semester, or evening classes. The faculty subscribes to and fully supports the Honor System. The Honor System places responsibility for honesty where it belongs: the individual student or faculty member. The individual is responsible for reporting any academic dishonesty he/she may see, as well as being responsible for his/her own honesty. By placing the responsibility on the individual, each student and faculty member becomes the guardian of the Honor System.

The Honor Council

Elected officials of the Honor Council include the Chief Justice who presides in a non-voting capacity at hearings, Associate Chief Justice who performs the duties of the Chief Justice should he/she be unable to attend, and the Clerk who performs administrative duties of the council. Each justice is appointed for leadership ability, character, interest in the undergraduate colleges, honesty in all areas, and scholarship. At present, the Honor Council is composed of a minimum of five justices. The faculty advisors and the Chief Justice serve in a non-voting capacity. Subject to approval by the student senate, the Honor Council sets forth its own procedure.

What Constitutes A Violation of the Honor Code

A violation of the Honor Code involves cheating, plagiarism, academic negligence, or other acts which compromise academic integrity. It is the responsibility of the student to ascertain what would constitute a violation of the Honor Code in any given situation. One has an additional responsibility to understand fully an instructor's position in special situations which may emerge in his/her course. Ignorance or disapproval of an instructor's expressed class policy is not an excuse for an Honor Code violation.

The most frequent violations of the Honor Code are cheating and plagiarism. Cheating is taking credit for work that has been done by another person. The following are some of the more common instances of cheating:

1. Using notes, textbooks, or reference materials on a test, daily quiz, or examination unless the use of such materials is specifically permitted by the professor;
2. Copying ideas or facts from another person's papers during a test situation;
3. Giving or receiving facts or ideas either verbally or in writing during a test situation;
4. Obtaining test questions which a teacher does not release for further reference;
5. Obtaining or giving specific information which will be on a test before the test is administered;
6. Using unassigned translations in a reading course in a foreign language.

The above list is not all-inclusive of Honor Code violations. This list gives students a general idea of what constitutes an Honor Code violation.

Plagiarism is defined as the use of ideas, facts, phrases, or additional materials such as maps and charts from any source without giving proper credit for such material. Any material in a paper or report which is not credited to the source is understood to be the original work of the author, regardless of misinformation, carelessness, sloppiness, or typographical errors.

Academic negligence is unacceptable conduct of a student during a testing situation, including outside assignments, papers, homework, and lab reports. It may include the student's failure to understand the instructor's specific instructions. Plagiarism that results from negligence is not academic negligence—it is plagiarism and will be treated as such.

Perjury is the falsification of testimony or other evidence presented to the Council. Willfully omitting evidence may also result in a conviction. To avoid academic dishonesty in laboratory work and in writing papers, please adhere to the laboratory and referencing procedures listed below.

Laboratory and Referencing Procedures

Laboratory Procedures

1. Chemistry and Physics experiments, psychology and other reports, and biology lab plates are to be the work of the individual student, not the combined efforts of a group of students unless the instructor stipulates otherwise.
2. There must be (where applicable, e.g., Psychology) exact and accurate annotation and credit given for material taken and used.
3. The instructor has the right to delineate what constitutes academic dishonesty in the laboratory, as in the classroom. Responsibility rests solely on the student to determine from the instructor what is required and allowed in any questionable situation.

Referencing Procedures

1. If an instructor specifies a class policy on referencing, it must be followed.
2. If no class policy is specified, it is the student's responsibility to learn of any departmental manuals. If a department accepts such manuals, their policies on referencing should be followed. For example: The Council of Biological Editors Style Manual for the Biology Department or The Handbook of Authors of Papers in The Journal of the American Chemical Society for the Chemistry Department.
3. If there is no specified policy or departmental manual, the policy must be as is specified in the most current MLA Handbook.

Procedures for Reporting Honor Code Violations

Each student is responsible for reporting any and all violations of the Honor Code. The student accepts this responsibility when he/she enters the University and is expected of him or her as a vital participant in the Honor System. The system is so dependent upon this student responsibility that the shirking of this responsibility is considered a serious violation of the Honor System.

The set procedure for reporting a violation is:

1. If a student sees, knows, or hears an act of dishonesty, he/she is responsible for reporting the suspected violation to the instructor concerned or to a member of the Honor System. The primary obligation of the student is to see that the alleged violation reaches the Honor System as soon as possible.
2. If one knows of or sees an act of academic dishonesty, a student may go to the student suspected of the violation and ask him or her to report the violation personally, stating that if this is not done within a certain period of time, the violation will be reported.
3. A student should remember in any and all cases that one's primary duty and obligations is to report the act to the Honor Council either directly or indirectly. The Honor Council email address is HonorCouncil@Student.Mercer.edu. Even in cases where there is only suspicion, the details of the suspicion should be divulged to the instructor.

The Honor System rests primarily with the students of the University. It carries with it the personal responsibility of individual honesty and the personal obligation of individual involvement to see that no violation goes unreported. The system cannot and will not work unless each student accepts one's responsibility and exercises this responsibility.

Rights and Responsibilities of the Charged Student

1. The student alleged to have made a violation of the Honor Code shall have the following due process rights in the event that one shall face a hearing before the Honor Council:
   1. The right to seventy-two (72) hours notification before his/her official hearing served by a member of the Honor System. This right may be waived by joint consent of the charged student and the System.
   2. The right to be presumed not responsible of Honor Code violations until proven guilty by clear and convincing evidence.
   3. The right to due process and equal protection under the Student Government Association Constitution and subsequent legislation.
   4. The right to be informed of all charges against him/her and to review all evidence at least seventy-two (72) hours before a hearing.
   5. The right to confront all witnesses and to question those witnesses, as well as re-examine all evidence in the hearing.
   6. The right to call witnesses on his/her own behalf.  Witnesses are limited to Mercer University students, faculty, and staff unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice. 
   7. The right to counsel provided that said counsel is an undergraduate student at Mercer University.  Counsel may be present at the testimony of the witnesses and the charged student; however, counsel will not be permitted to answer questions in lieu of the student.
   8. The right to remove, for cause, any member of the Honor Council from the hearing.  The Honor Council shall have the right to go into executive session to decide on the motion to remove.
   9. The right to appeal the decisions of the Honor Council. This right must be exercised within four (4) class days after written notification of the results of the hearing.
   10. The student has the right of full free speech and therefore may choose to remain silent when questions are posed and have no inference of responsibility made from his/her silence.
   11. The student acknowledges that the entire hearing may be recorded on analog or digital technology that may be reviewed if the final decision of the Council is appealed (see below.)
2. The charged student shall have the following responsibilities in the event of a hearing before the Honor Council:
   1. A general duty to cooperate fully with the Council in all matters pertaining to hearing procedure.
   2. A duty to be present at the hearing at its scheduled time. If the student fails to appear or to notify the Council, the hearing shall proceed in his/her absence.
   3. A duty to answer all relevant questions frankly, fully, and honestly, remembering that false information or willful omission of evidence could carry a charge of "Furnishing False Information" and/or "Contempt and/or Disregard for Judicial Procedures" before the University Judicial System.
   4. A duty to contact character witnesses and refer them to the investigating justice.
   5. Harassment of witnesses, justices, instructors, or other charged students is strictly forbidden. All contact with members of the Honor System concerning Honor System matters must take place only between the student and the Chief Justice or his/her appointed representative.

Rights and Responsibilities of the Witnesses

1. The witness shall have the following rights in the event the student charged with an honor code violation faces an Honor Council hearing:
   1. The right to be presented with a summons at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the hearing.
   2. The right that neither one's person nor property will be insulted, molested, threatened, or damaged because of participation in a hearing.
   3. The right to remain silent when one feels questions may lead to implicating him/her in a judicial matter and to have no inference of responsibility to be drawn from that silence.
2. The witness shall have the following responsibilities in the event that the charged student faces an Honor Council hearing:
   1. The responsibility to be present at the scheduled time of a hearing.
   2. The duty to answer all relevant questions frankly, fully, and honestly, remembering that false information or willful omission of evidence could carry a charge of Furnishing False Information" and/or "Contempt and/or Disregard for Judicial Procedures" before the University Judicial System.

Sanctions for Honor Code Violations

If the student is found responsible for violation of the Honor Code, the possible sanctions are:

• Immediate expulsion
• Suspension
• An Honor Council "F" in a course
• Zero on the assignment
• Letter grade reduction of final course grade

Sanctions for academic negligence include a written censure and other sanctions not exceeding a written censure. Sanctions for providing false information include immediate expulsion, suspension, censures, or other discretionary sanctions. The Honor Council may also select educational sanctions to accompany or replace the above sanctions.

Appeal Process

The student may appeal in writing to the Dean or the Dean's appointed representative of the College/School in which he/she is enrolled within four school (4) days after written notification of the results of the Honor Council hearing. He/she may appeal on the following grounds:

1. New information (available after the hearing) of a nature that the verdict or sanction may have been different;
2. Significant procedural error occurred which substantially affected the outcome of the hearing; *
3. The sanction imposed was inconsistent with the weight of the information.

   *Procedural flaws alone are not grounds for an appeal. Significant procedural errors that may have affected the verdict or sanction will be considered.

Under normal circumstances, the Dean will convene an advisory committee to assess the merit of the appeal. This committee may be composed of justices from the Honor Council and one or more members of the faculty.

The Dean shall have the authority to act de novo to determine the issues of both responsibility and sanction(s). The accused may appeal the Dean's decision to the President of the University or to the President's appointed representative.

Alternative—Administrative Hearing

When the Student Honor Council is not sitting (e.g., during the summer), the student alleged to have made a violation of the Honor Code may select an alternative due process hearing to expedite his/her case involving an alleged Honor System violation. This hearing will be presided over by the Dean or the Dean's appointed representative of the College/School in which the student is enrolled. The Administrative Hearing Board is composed of one academic administrative officer appointed by the Dean or the Dean's appointed representative. The Dean or the Dean's appointed representative may also appoint available Honor System justices and a faculty member from the appropriate school to this hearing, guided by the exigency of the situation. Honor System rules and procedures relating to (1) the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty and (2) the fairness of the sanction(s) shall apply to this hearing.

The student shall have (1) the right to the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as to the evidence against him or her and (2) the right to a sanction that "fits the violation" and that includes "mitigating circumstances" (such as acknowledgment and repentance of the offense, affirmation of the Mercer Honor System, first-year status, first offense, character attestation by witnesses). The student shall have the right to all appellate processes detailed in the Honor System.

The student may select the Honor Council as his/her forum to decide responsibility and sanctions, when the Council sits during the regular academic year (Fall and Spring.) If the Student Honor Council does not resolve the issue of the student's alleged Honor System violation by the end of the Spring Semester plus ten days, the student, having the right to a "speedy hearing" may select the "Alternative-Administrative" hearing as his/her proper due process hearing. However, the student must be warned that the right to the Honor Council, with its long tradition of benefits on behalf of those charged with an Honor Code Violation, will be waived if the accused selects the Alternative-Administrative hearing.

(Approved by the Student Government Association: March 2006)

Contact Us

Mercer University Honor Council
Campus Box 70044
Fax:  (478) 301-5576

Email:  HonorCouncil@student.mercer.edu