Undergraduate Senate doubles down on opposition to Honor Code revision proposal, citing breach of precedent and pupil belief

At its Tuesday assembly, the Undergraduate Senate (UGS) expressed disapproval of a movement handed by the College Senate final Thursday to unilaterally revise the Honor Code and explicitly allow examination proctoring within the upcoming college yr. Senators additionally stated that they’ll meet with directors later this week to debate the Senate’s movement.

The movement handed by the College Senate final Thursday asserts that the Senate has the only authority to present instructors “the suitable to have interaction in cheap proctoring of in-person exams” and explicitly permits proctoring within the 2023-24 tutorial yr. The Senate’s vote sidestepped the UGS’s resolution to twice reject the Committee of 12’s (C12) advisable Honor Code language and Tutorial Integrity Working Group (AIWG) research into proctoring. 

The College Senate’s vote — dubbed the “nuclear choice” by Vice Provost of Undergraduate Schooling Sarah Church and others — sidestepped 102 years of precedent on “shared governance” between college and college students on issues of educational integrity. UGS co-chair Amira Dehmani ’24 introduced that she, together with fellow co-chair Aden Beyene ’24 and Related College students of Stanford College (ASSU) Govt President Darryl Thompson ’23, will meet with Church and members of the College Senate Thursday to debate the movement handed by the Senate final Thursday.

Dehmani voiced opposition to the College Senate’s breach of precedent and sidestep of the double rejection taken by the UGS. “I feel they need to retract this resolution,” she stated, including that the Senate’s resolution was “disrespectful” and “extremely flawed.”

Senator Kyle Becerra ’24 added that, by sidestepping the UGS vote, the College Senate was delegitimizing the voices of the undergraduate pupil physique and overriding its elected representatives. “They don’t respect that now we have a voice,” Becerra stated. “They circumvented the democratic course of. The issue is probably going staring them within the face.”

The cost of the C12 required that its proposed modifications be accredited by the Board on Judicial Affairs (BJA), the UGS, the Graduate Scholar Council (GSC), the College Senate and Stanford President earlier than taking impact. That is mirrored by the method for approving the cost of the AIWG which says, in accordance with the Honor Code proposal introduced earlier than the C12 approving our bodies, that “the cost for the AIWG is to be set by the identical college entities that set the cost for the [C12].”

The College Senate’s movement bypasses the coed vote to permit professors to proctor exams within the upcoming tutorial yr, though the movement can be overridden by the C12’s proposals ought to the UGS decide to re-vote on and cross the C12’s proposed revisions.

The UGS has confronted opposition from a number of professors and graduate college students for its rejection of the C12’s proposed Honor Code revisions. Nonetheless, UGS parliamentarian Diego Kagurabadza ’25 stated that the rejection was an train of “an inherent proper of negotiating events, in the event that they don’t agree with the phrases of a contract, to exit.”

“This belief is totally damaged,” Dehmani stated relating to what additional engagement with the College Senate may seem like.

Senator Mark Huerta ’24 stated that the UGS can’t straight override the vote of the College Senate and “the College may be very prone to enact the College Senate’s resolution.” Huerta, who beforehand voted in favor of the Honor Code proposals after they have been put earlier than the UGS, stated what he supported was “extra knowledge [and] extra outcomes” and a “a lot bigger campus dialog about this difficulty.”

Beyene stated that the UGS has acquired blended suggestions on proctoring and different facets of educational integrity. Beyene cited issues raised by college students that proctoring could possibly be annoying, distracting and burdensome in direction of disabled college students. Nonetheless, in accordance with Beyene, there have been “numerous [responses] mentioning particular experiences of witnessing dishonest inside their classroom setting.”

The C12’s aggregation of pupil suggestions reported that “undergraduate pupil outreach on in-person proctoring yielded just below half against in-person proctoring throughout exams right here, and the remainder equally cut up between ‘sure’ and ‘perhaps.’”

In response to the C12 proposals and suggestions packet, the AIWG research into proctoring would final 2-4 years and permit restricted situations of the follow. 

Beyene stated that she opposed the AIWG partially because of what she characterised as an absence of specificity. “The rationale which I voted no is as a result of I don’t like the concept that there can’t be extra specification on what proctoring goes to seem like within the research,” Beyene stated.

UGS deputy chair Ritwik Tati ’25 stated that his concern with proctoring “is that [it] addresses the smaller portion of [Honor Code] violations. That comes with the sacrifice of racial profiling and incapacity practices.”

Reporting on pupil suggestions, the C12 wrote that the majority student-observed Honor Code violations happening in settings apart from an examination room was simply one of many pupil arguments towards its effectiveness.

“As of now, technically, anyone that witnesses an Honor Code violation and [does] not report it could possibly be charged with an Honor Code violation,” C12 undergraduate member Xavier Milan ’26 stated in reference to the sorts of conditions that he says the revised Honor Code would do a greater job of avoiding. Milan stated that the proposals handed the Committee by a “broad consensus,” whereas characterizing the College Senate’s vote as an “overstep.”

Certifying the 2023 UGS election outcomes

The UGS unanimously voted to certify the 2023 UGS election outcomes following the conclusion of the case of Election Commissioner v. Chen, through which UGS Senator-Elect Ivy Chen ’26 confronted costs of violating ASSU marketing campaign finance guidelines. The ASSU Constitutional Council issued a joint decision on the case Monday night, through which a settlement was reached between Chen and ASSU Election Commissioner Whit Froelich J.D. ’24, who dropped his preliminary criticism.

Chen, who acquired probably the most votes of any UGS candidate within the election, will take workplace and should pay again all of the marketing campaign reimbursements ($100) issued to her by the ASSU. The case, which was ongoing on the time of the earlier UGS assembly, was why the outcomes for the twenty fifth UGS had not already been licensed.

Constitutional Council Chair Sherwin Lai ’24 wrote an opinion separate from the joint decision of the Council through which he referred to the settled case as “one more reflection of the staggering and relentless disregard of longstanding precedents of the Constitutional Council which have been reaffirmed a number of instances.”

The Council has heard two circumstances on marketing campaign finance guidelines earlier than — as soon as in 2000 and once more in 2003 — and in each situations the foundations have been caught down. Lai wrote that he voted in favor of dismissing the case earlier than the Council because of not wanting “to pressure the events to argue a case that neither aspect seeks to proceed.”

Granting Discretion over Marketing campaign Spending Audits

The UGS tabled a revised invoice — authored by Beyene and sponsored by Froehlich, Chen and Thompson — to present the ASSU Elections Fee discretion over circumstances of purported marketing campaign finance rule violations. Underneath the invoice, the ASSU Monetary Supervisor can be tasked with auditing these operating for ASSU elected workplaces. The invoice then forwards proof of purported irregularities from the Monetary Supervisor to the Fee along with the ASSU President and people chairing the UGS and GSC.

Dehmani expressed issues concerning the very involvement of the legislative our bodies.

“I really feel like that messes slightly bit with separation of powers,” she stated, expressing a desire to defer to the Constitutional Council questions on conflicts of curiosity.

Beyene stated that involving the legislative our bodies of the ASSU was meant within the spirit of collaboration.

Underneath the invoice, the Fee has discretion over presenting proof to the Council on purported marketing campaign finance irregularities. Candidates wishing to contest sanctions levied towards them by the Fee can attraction to the Council. The Fee doesn’t must current proof to the Council if purported violations will be both “simply remedied” or “not impacting the election outcomes, with this resolution being agreed upon through a 2/third vote of each legislative our bodies.”

Involved concerning the discretion given to the Fee, Dehmani stated she wished a requirement that the Fee make candidates dealing with sanctions conscious of these sanctions to allow them to contest them if desired.

Abolishing marketing campaign spending limits

Additionally tabled, the UGS mentioned a invoice authored by Senator Donya Sarrafian ‘23 that removes all the ASSU’s limits on marketing campaign spending and donations. The invoice cites the 1999 Constitutional Council case — Case 5 — that declared required limits on marketing campaign spending to be unconstitutional and a “clear abridgment of free speech.”

The ASSU Structure at the moment imposes fastened limits on the mixed spending and donations of Govt, Class President and UGS/GSC campaigns at $500, $100 and $100 respectively.

Sarrafian stated {that a} core focus of the invoice is to foster a extra equitable ASSU marketing campaign system.

“A whole lot of it’s primarily based on sustaining fairness between candidates,” Sarrafian stated. The ASSU limits on marketing campaign funds, as they at the moment stand, “give a disproportionate benefit to native college students who can use their mother and father’ workplaces to print issues [or] who can go dwelling to print issues.”

“College students who may need a printer of their room [and] college students who have already got a big social media presence won’t have to promote as a lot,” she stated.

Thompson, a former member of the UGS himself, stated that one other drawback was weighing the potential inequities of finance limits with the inequities that would outcome from having no limits in any respect.

“I’m combating weighing the inequities clause with the potential of individuals pumping some huge cash into [elections] which others don’t have,” Thompson stated. “Maybe the explanation we’re not seeing exorbitant spending is as a result of present constraints don’t enable for that.”

Clarifications to the Annual Grant course of

Tabled from its Apr. 25 assembly, the UGS handed a invoice which revises facets of the method by which Annual Grants are accredited. The invoice codifies and clarifies a lot of regular, present UGS Appropriations Committee practices akin to a Voluntary Service Group (VSO) solely with the ability to submit one Annual Grant per tutorial yr.

The invoice additionally explicitly states that “the Appropriations Committee should unanimously approve all requests from VSOs to switch an Annual Grant.” Modification can also be accredited by a two-thirds vote of the UGS.

“Because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I feel this [bill] will make clear issues quite a bit for teams going ahead,” Huerta stated in sponsoring the invoice with its creator Kagurabadza.

Appointment to the Group Board of Public Security

Additionally tabled from its Apr. 25 assembly, the UGS voted to substantiate Dehmani’s nomination to the Group Board of Public Security (CBPS), the College committee tasked with “reimagining public security on the Stanford campus.” The Board additionally prepares an annual report that’s submitted to the Stanford President, Vice President and Normal Counsel and the Chief of Police.

Dehmani introduced consideration to problems with campus surveillance and policing in her assertion, writing that she desires to “advocate for measures that really assist college students, not proceed to profile and discriminate towards them.”

“I’ll be certain that fairness is on the coronary heart of those selections, and that pupil issues over the racist and ableist historical past of policing and surveillance on this campus are listened to,” Dehmani wrote.

Healthcare Advocacy Committee

The UGS tabled a decision to create a Healthcare Advocacy Committee to handle numerous points associated to healthcare on campus. Senator Priyanka Shrestha ’24 met with fourth-year aeronautics and astronautics Ph.D. and GSC co-chair Jason Anderson to include GSC suggestions to make clear particulars on the invoice and stated there may be nonetheless knowledge to be built-in into the invoice. Additional conferences with the GSC are being deliberate.