This Honor Code, written and maintained by the students of Olin College, exists to provide an ethical framework for the Olin student community. It represents an individual commitment by each Olin student to dedicate themselves to these standards, as well as a community commitment to ensure that these standards are upheld. This Code will serve always as a bold statement that ethics are not optional at Olin and that they are simultaneously an individual and community concern.
I will represent myself accurately and completely in my work, my words, and my actions in academic and in non-academic affairs.
I will be patient with and understanding of fellow community members, and considerate of their inherent dignity, identity, and personal property. I will not discriminate based on race, religion, color, national origin, age, marital or parental status, veteran status, sex, disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity. I will also care for community resources and facilities so others may effectively use them.
I will be a steward for the welfare of Olin College through a spirit of cooperation, concern for others, and responsibility for the reputation of Olin College.
I will be receptive to change, supportive of innovation, and willing to take risks for the benefit of the community.
I will strive to be an active advocate for the well-being of my community. I will seek to understand, and then act on, issues I perceive around me that are specific to both Olin and beyond. I will engage in open, self-reflective discussion with my peers and support them in their efforts to do the same.
-
Students are expected to behave in ways consistent with the Olin community values. Below are behaviors and actions which would violate these values and which students will be held accountable for by the Student Accountability Process:
-
Bullying, Harassment, and/or Intimidation: repeated, pervasive, and/or aggressive behavior utilized to harm or intimidate, control or diminish another person physically or mentally.
-
Damage to Property: engaging in acts that cause damage to college and/or community property.
-
Disorderly Conduct: engaging in acts which disturb the peace of community members and/or the function of Olin (including, any department).
-
Disregard for Campus Policy: knowingly or unknowingly violating department/campus policies, including but not limited to Drug and Alcohol, Residence Life, and Technology Policies. (Note: Violations of the Sexual and Interpersonal Misconduct and Title IX policy are handled by the Office of Non-Discrimination Initiatives and Title IX Coordinators).
-
Failure to Comply: unwillingness to comply with the directives of college officials.
-
Honor Code Violations: acts that, knowingly or unknowingly violate the Honor Code Values.
-
Interference with the Conduct/Accountability Process: disrupting the conduct/accountability process through misrepresentation of information to Olin administrators, influencing or impacting an involved party(ies) participation in the conduct/accountability process.
-
Misuse of College Resources: excessive use, intentionally or unintentionally, of college resources which negatively affects the access or ease of use by other community members (resources can be physical materials, space, etc.).
-
Misuse of Space/College Property: the use of college space or property outside of the guidelines provided for its use.
-
Physical Harm/Altercation: engaging in acts of violence which include physical aggression and harm to others.
-
Possession/Use of False Identification: having access to identification which does not depict accurate identifying information.
-
Endangering Others / Safety Risk: engaging in acts that intentionally or unintentionally places oneself and/or others at risk.
-
Supporting Violation(s) of College Policies: supporting, assisting, facilitating or encouraging another party in the willful violation of college policies.
-
Theft: taking, without permission, an item(s) from a community member or removing community items for personal use.
-
Unauthorized Access/Entry: entering a space without expressed permission to enter and/or accessing a space during a timeframe it is not available/permitted to be accessed.
-
Violation of the Articulation: knowingly or unknowingly disregarding the policies of articulation at the participating articulation institutions (Babson, Brandeis, Wellesley).
-
Violation of the Law: lack of adherence to federal, state and local laws.
-
Weapons and other Dangerous Devices: the possession of items deemed dangerous to oneself and/or community members. This includes but is not limited to, guns, knives (not utilized for cooking or as a tool in fabrication), chemicals, 3D printed items, etc.
Adviser to the Honor Board: A member of the Olin community who attends Honor Board meetings and is a member of the Appeals Board and Honor Board Leadership. They have access to all Honor Board cases and are the primary point of contact for working with the Honor Board. This role is filled by the Dean of Student Affairs or their designee.
Aggrieved Parties: The Facilitation Team can determine that there are one or more aggrieved parties, in addition to the Reporter, who have been substantively aggrieved by the violation beyond any grievance suffered by the Olin community as a whole.
Appeals Board: This group is convened to review all information available pertaining to hearings and proceedings that have led to an Appeal in a case heard by the Honor Board. It is composed of the members of the Honor Board Leadership not on the Facilitation Team as well as the Faculty and Staff Representatives. If both members of Honor Board Leadership were on the Facilitation team, a general member will be appointed to the Appeals Board, ensuring student representation. The purpose of the Appeals Board is to ensure that such proceedings were conducted according to the established procedures as written in the Community Expectations Policy and, if it is determined that procedures were not followed accordingly, to send the case back to the Honor Board for further review to a newly formed Facilitation Team containing different members of the Honor Board.
Business Days: days of Olin operation, typically occurring Monday – Friday.
Case: A General Report that has merit as determined by the Honor Board Leadership and/or Facilitation Team.
Charge: The details of a violation and each individual aspect of the Honor Code or college policies or procedures addressed by a report.
Direct Adjudication: Direct Adjudication is the path for addressing violations of the Community Expectations Policy intended for particularly serious cases or those with extenuating circumstances (i.e. those where suspension or expulsion is a potential or likely outcome). This path involves a meeting held by a Student Accountability Administrator with a student or student group representative and necessary follow-up actions to address allegations of misconduct.
Discussion: A meeting with the Facilitation Team and other individuals involved in a Case.
Facilitation Team: The Facilitation Team consists of either the Adviser, the Staff Representative, or the Faculty Representative, along with two members of the Honor Board that facilitate Report proceedings. Their goal is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a responsible and timely manner per the Honor Code. The Facilitation Team is chosen by Honor Board Leadership to reduce the connections and bias each member might have towards the Reporter or Reported.
Faculty Representative: A member of the faculty who is trained in Honor Board procedures, can be selected to be a member of a Facilitation Team, and is a member of the Appeals Board. When on a Facilitation Team, the Faculty Representative can be present at all Discussions and Responsibility Hearings, but ultimately hold no decision making power in recommending Sanctions or determining Responsibility. The Faculty Representative is selected by Honor Board Leadership.
Follow-up Discussion: After an Initial Discussion in which the Reported accepts Responsibility, a Facilitation Team may hold an additional meeting to resolve the Case. These meetings may involve the Reporter, Reported, Witnesses, Supporters and other impacted parties. They may be used to discuss sanctions and/or to use Restorative Practices.
Hearing Panel: The Hearing Panel consists of three persons selected by the Facilitation Team, the Chair, and the Vice Chair from the General Members of the Honor Board. The Hearing Panel recommends sanctions and the Adviser to the Honor Board approves/modifies/waives sanction as detailed in Responsibility Hearings.
Honor Board (membership): The Honor Board is a Board of students charged with upholding the Honor Code. Its members consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, and 8 (eight) general members. There must be at least 1 (one) member from each class year, and no class year is able to have more than 3 (three) general members. Additional involvement includes a Staff Representative, a Faculty Representative, and an Adviser to the Honor Board. The Honor Board is independent of CORe and other student bodies. The Honor Board can function with less than 8 (eight) general members.
Honor Board (path): The Honor Board path is considered the preferred and default path for addressing violations of the Community Expectations Policy.
Honor Board Leadership: The Honor Board Leadership consists of the Chair, Vice Chair, and the Adviser to the Honor Board. The Chair does administrative tasks and works with the rest of the Honor Board to assist in hearing and administrative processes. The Vice Chair assists the Chair in their duties. The Chair and the Vice Chair are not permitted to be in the same class year. The Adviser is the Dean of Student Affairs or their designee. Honor Board Leadership is responsible for determining merit of Reports and overseeing and assigning Facilitation Teams to all Cases.
Impacted Party: An individual, group, or entity who did not file the Report but was affected by the alleged misconduct.
Initial Discussion: A meeting between the Facilitation Team and the Reported to discuss the charges in the Case and to hear the Reported’s perspective and whether they accept Responsibility for the charges.
Investigative Procedure: If deemed necessary by the Honor Board Leadership and/or the Facilitation Team, an Investigative Procedure may take place to determine the Merit of a Report. All actions taken regarding a Report before a decision of Merit are considered part of this procedure.
Merit: A determination as to whether or not a Report contains an allegation may rise to the level of a violation of Community Expectations. Merit can be determined by the Honor Board Leadership Team or a Facilitation team and may or may not involve an additional Investigative Procedure.
Outcome: The results of the accountability process.
Report: Any report of a violation(s) of the Community Expectations, including the Honor Code Values. A report may take the form of “General”, “Streamlined Academic”, or “Streamlined Residential.”
Reported(s): The student(s) or student group alleged to have violated the Community Expectations Policy, including the Honor Code Values.
Reporter(s): The individual, group, or entity who files a Report.
Responsibility Hearing: The Honor Board process by which the Reporter, Reported, Facilitation Team, Hearing Panel, and Adviser to the Honor Board meet to determine responsibility and set sanctions, if deemed appropriate.
Responsibility: Acceptance of one’s actions; refers to confirming the reported actions listed on a report and/or other violations of the Community Expectations Policy.
Restorative Justice: A framework for preventing or responding to harm that emphasizes repairing harm, active accountability, and strengthening interpersonal and community relationships and trust.
Restorative Practice(s): An approach to addressing conduct issues informed by principles and practices of Restorative Justice. When appropriate and mutually agreed upon, Restorative Practices can be incorporated in the resolution of a Case to address the impact or harm caused by the Reported’s actions, address the impact on the Reporter, and to restore trust between relevant parties and the larger community, and/or to collaboratively agree on sanctions. Restorative Practices can be used as part of Discussion-based Case resolution or during Hearings.
Restorative Solution: An alternative to a Discussion or Responsibility Hearing in which both the Reported and Reporter agree to using Restorative Practices to resolve the Case.
Sanction: The consequence assigned to the Reported based upon a finding of responsibility and upon the nature of the violation as determined by the Student Accountability Administrator or Hearing Panel. Sanctions may be an outcome of a Discussion-based process after the Reported takes Responsibility or an outcome of a Responsibility Hearing. The Facilitation Team is responsible for determining Sanctions; Sanctions are reviewed by the Dean of Student Affairs before they are delivered to the Reported. In the case of Direct Adjudication, Sanctions are determined by the Student Accountability Administrator.
Staff Representative: A member of the staff who is trained in Honor Board procedures, can be selected to be a member of a Facilitation Team, and is a member of the Appeals Board. When on a Facilitation Team, the Staff Representative can be present at all Discussions and Responsibility Hearings, but ultimately hold no decision making power in recommending Sanctions or determining Responsibility. The Staff Representative is selected by Honor Board Leadership.
Streamlined Academic Report: Reports of an academic violation where a conclusion has been reached and is sent to the Honor Board to record the event.
Streamlined Residential Report: Reports of a residential life violation where a conclusion has been reached and is sent to the Honor Board to record the event.
Student: An individual who is enrolled at Olin full-time, and in special circumstances, on a part-time basis.
Student Accountability Administrators: Olin administrators who have been deemed by the Dean of Student Affairs to serve as an individual who could lead the Administrative Meeting.
Student Group: Student organizations recognized officially by Olin and in some limited circumstances, the group has not gone through the official recognition process for the College but gathers and the presence is known/acknowledged by Olin.
Support Person (Supporter): The Reported and Reporter are allowed to request a member of the Olin community (i.e. any student, faculty, or staff member) not involved in the alleged misconduct to attend accountability process meetings with the Reported or Reporter. This individual does not speak or otherwise play an active role during meetings but is present to provide emotional care during any meeting. They may speak with the person they are supporting before and after the meeting, but otherwise may not discuss the proceedings of the Hearing with anyone else. Their role exists to support the Reported or Reporter both inside and outside of the Hearing.
Witness: An individual present for, or with knowledge of, the events in a Report who can provide direct information and/or evidence regarding the matter. Both the Reporter and the Reported can call Witnesses in an Honor Board Responsibility Hearing or Direct Adjudication. The Honor Board Facilitation Team may also interview Witnesses as part of the Investigative Procedure. Witnesses have the right to refuse to answer questions and the right to refuse to be interviewed during an investigative procedure.
In the event of an allegation of misconduct, students, student groups, and student organizations have the right to:
- Have all conduct procedures fully explained,
- Be made aware of any allegations of misconduct,
- Be given the opportunity to respond to those charges,
- Hear/Review any evidence submitted to support the alleged violations,
- Be given the opportunity to present evidence which counters the allegations,
- Have their matter heard by an impartial, and appropriately trained, party,
- Be informed, in writing, of meetings and the outcomes, including any Sanctions and deadlines for completion, if applicable,
- Expect confidentiality of personal information from individuals involved with the investigation/adjudication of an alleged act of misconduct,
- Be treated with respect by Olin employees and Honor Board members throughout all conduct processes,
- (For Reporting/Impacted Parties) To share information about the impact statement and provide input on Sanctions when relevant,
- Provided with an opportunity to appeal, and
- Have their matter addressed in a timely manner.
When a student, or other member of the Olin community, reports a potential violation of the Honor Code or other College policy, there are several tracks for adjudication. This Honor Code outlines the track that involves the Olin College Honor Board, a group of elected student representatives and appointed employees of the college responsible for facilitating adjudication of violation reports sent to them. Other tracks - Direct Adjudication by the Office of Student Affairs, direct facilitation and/or adjudication by the Olin College Office of Non-Discrimination Initiatives (Title IX Coordinator), civil or criminal courts, etc. are not bound to the same process as outlined herein.
When a community member believes they have witnessed or been the victim of a violation of the Community Expectations Policy, they reserve the right to submit a Report. The Report may be submitted via email to the Dean of Student Affairs or through the Honor Board Report Form for review. The Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, and the student Honor Board Leadership will collaborate to review the complaint and determine the Merit of the complaint and path to resolution. If it is determined that the reported allegations align with a violation(s) of the Community Expectations Policy, the Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, will determine whether the alleged violation warrants the activation of one of the accountability processes, and which path, Honor Board or Direct Adjudication, is appropriate).
The format and desired content of the reporting form utilized to report allegations of Community Expectations Policy violation(s) will be determined by the Dean of Student Affairs, or their designee, and the Honor Board, and is subject to change as necessary. At a minimum, the form will require those reporting allegations to cite a minimum of one violation of Community Expectations Policy, inclusive of Honor Code Values and/or Olin policies or procedures.
The Chair and Vice Chair have the ability to dismiss a report if it is not under the jurisdiction of the Honor Code or has an obvious lack of merit. In the case of the Chair or Vice Chair being the Reported party in an Honor Board report, merit and jurisdiction determination will fall to the Advisor of the Honor Board. If the report is not dismissed, typical procedures are followed. If a report is not dismissed for obvious lack of merit or jurisdiction, the Reporter should be contacted within 2 (two) business days to further determine merit or to assign a Facilitation Team.
Upon receiving a Report, which is under the jurisdiction of the Honor Board and has merit, the Honor Board Leadership will assign a Facilitation Team to the Report. Based on the case, the Facilitation Team will contact the Reporter for the purposes of organizing a Hearing or pursuing a Restorative Solution using Restorative Practices. The Reported will also typically be contacted within 2 (two) business days of assignment of a Facilitation Team. The Facilitation Team may reserve the right to gather information from the Reporter prior to contacting the Reported.
If either the Honor Board Leadership or the Facilitation Team feels they are not able to clearly determine merit from the content of the report, the Facilitation team should conduct an Investigative Procedure. The purpose of this procedure is not to determine Responsibility, but merely whether or not a Report is worthy.
If an Investigative Procedure is deemed necessary by either the Honor Board Leadership or the Facilitation Team, the Facilitation Team shall interview the Reported and the Reporter about the alleged violation and shall gather from both parties names of any Witnesses able to substantially contribute to the Facilitation Team’s understanding of the alleged violation. Members of the Facilitation Team may interview Witnesses with substantive knowledge of the alleged violation. In absence of obvious lack of merit after an efficient Investigative Procedure, all Reports should be assumed to have merit and be continued to a Case. The Reported, Reporter, and Witnesses should be contacted within 2 (two) business days of a report being filed. After this contact, the Investigate Procedure should be completed within a week. In absence of obvious lack of merit after an efficient Investigative Procedure, all Reports should be assumed to have merit and be continued to a Case.
If, in a Case that does not involve a potential academic or residential violation of the Honor Code, and all members of the Facilitation Team, as well as all Reporters, Reported, and involved Aggrieved Parties, agree that a Restorative Process may resolve the issue presented by the Report, then the Facilitation Team may recommend that Restorative Practices should be used to attempt to resolve the Case. In almost all cases, the Reported must accept responsibility for the reported actions and address the harm done to the Reporter for a Restorative Solution to be appropriate. This does not prevent the Facilitation Team from holding a Discussion or Responsibility Hearing if they deem necessary.
An Initial Discussion between the Reported and the Facilitation Team is held with the goal of hearing the perspective of the Reported and learning whether they take Responsibility for the reported actions. In this meeting the Facilitation Team briefly shares the charges detailed in the Report and relevant additional details or context found through any Investigative Procedure. The Reported is invited to recount their perspective or experience. If major discrepancies or conflicts in experiences or viewpoints are present, they will be clarified if possible. The Reported will then be given the opportunity to accept or not accept Responsibility. If Responsibility is not accepted, the Case will proceed to a Responsibility Hearing.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, an Initial Discussion shall be held within 10 (ten) business days of a Report being submitted. All Discussions will be closed to all persons other than the Facilitation Team, the Reported, and (optionally) their Supporter. Notice of the Discussion to the Reported shall include the Honor Code Values or Student Handbook Policies that were reported to have been violated. If the Honor Board is unable to meet its obligations in a timely fashion due to scheduling conflicts, disqualifications, or other reasons that the Adviser to the Honor Board determines may compromise its effectiveness, the Adviser to the Honor Board may appoint an ad hoc Facilitation Team.
If Responsibility is accepted, the Facilitation Team has the discretion to organize additional Follow-up Discussions and/or develop Sanctions. The goals of Follow-up Discussions are to use the framework of Restorative Justice to address and repair the harm or impact caused by the incident in the Report, for the Reported to take accountability, and for the Reported to foster personal and/or community development. Follow-up Discussions are led by the Facilitation Team and may include facilitated discussion with the Reported, the Reporter (if they agree), Supporters, and/or other impacted community members, as well as facilitated discussion of potential Restorative Solutions and/or Sanctions.
The Facilitation Team may request and/or review recommendations for Sanction(s) from the Reported, the Aggrieved Parties, and the Reporter if they are present at Follow-up Discussions. The Reported may respond to the Facilitation Team’s recommended Sanction(s) prior to the close of the Discussion. The Facilitation Team shall include in the materials it submits to the Adviser to the Honor Board a brief written summary of the Reported’s response. The Adviser reviews the recommended Sanctions and may approve or modify the Sanctions. Modifying the recommended Sanctions should be done rarely, and prior to modifying the Sanctions, the Adviser consults the Facilitation Team and the Honor Board Leadership. The Sanctions are then delivered to Reported by the Facilitation Team.
In the case that Responsibility is not accepted in the Initial Discussion, a Responsibility Hearing will be organized by the Facilitation Team and approved by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board. The Facilitation Team will choose an unbiased Hearing Panel as defined in the Procedural Definitions. The Reported, Reporter, Supporters, and any Witnesses called should attend this meeting. The Reporter has the option to not attend the Responsibility Hearing. In this case, the Reporter must submit a written testimony which will be read out in place of the Reporter’s speaking time. The Reporter does not need to disclose their identity in the written testimony and thus has an option to remain anonymous from the Reported.
The Reporter and Reported are allowed to request any additional Witnesses relevant to the case. The list of Witnesses requested can be approved or be denied at the discretion of the Facilitation Team, but should only be denied in case of irrelevance of their anticipated testimony. The Reporter can further submit evidence to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board to be used during the Responsibility Hearing. Written testimony and evidence should be provided by the latest 24 (twenty-four) hours before the hearing.
Immediately prior to the Hearing, the Hearing Panel will receive the Report submitted by the Reported and will be briefed by the Facilitation Team on the details of the Case and any pertinent findings during the Investigative Procedure. During the Responsibility Hearing, the Reported and the Reporter will both be given the opportunity to speak, or have a statement read, and the Hearing Panel will have the opportunity to ask questions of each.
After the presentation of all evidence, the Reported, Reporter, Supporters, and Witnesses will leave the room to allow the Hearing Panel to deliberate. The Facilitation Team will remain in the room, but do not have any final deciding power on Responsibility or recommended Sanctions, and should not interfere with the deliberation in any way. The Hearing Panel shall make one of the following decisions: (a) a finding of Not Responsible, (b) a finding of Responsible (based on preponderance of the evidence), to be followed up by a delivery of Sanctions, or (c) continuance of the Case to obtain additional information or for further consideration. All decisions shall be made by consensus.
If there are recommendations for sanctions from either the Reporter, the Aggrieved Parties, the Reported, or a combination of the above thereof, the Hearing Panel must take those recommendations into consideration.
In the case that the Hearing Panel finds the Reported responsible, recommended Sanctions will be sent to the Facilitation Team and the Adviser to the Honor Board, and the Facilitation Team will notify the Reported and Reporter of whether Responsibility was found and, if applicable, the Sanctions once they have been approved by the Adviser to the Honor Board.
The Reported may respond to the Hearing Panel’s recommended Sanction(s) prior to the close of the Hearing. The Adviser to the Honor Board shall review sanctions recommended by the Hearing Panel. Decisions shall be based solely upon evidence and testimony introduced at the Hearing(s) conducted and shall be made by consensus (i.e., the unanimous vote of the voting members of the Hearing Panel who do not abstain from voting). The Hearing Panel shall include in the materials it submits to the Adviser to the Honor Board a brief written summary of the Reported’s response, if given. The Adviser to the Honor Board then may approve, modify, or waive the recommended Sanctions. Modifying or waiving the recommended Sanctions should be done rarely, and prior to modifying or waiving the Sanctions, the Adviser consults the Facilitation Team, Hearing Panel, and the Honor Board Leadership. The Sanctions are then delivered to Reported by the Facilitation Team.
Upon conclusion of an Honor Board hearing and delivery of the Sanctions to the parties involved, the Reported and/or Reporter may appeal a “finding of responsibility” or “sanctions” by writing via email to the Adviser to the Honor Board within two business days following the delivery of the outcome of the hearing. The Appeal letter must clearly state the grounds and rationale for the Appeal. Once received, the Adviser to the Honor Board will convene an Appeals Board. The members of the Appeals Board will be the Faculty Representative to the Honor Board, the Staff Representative to the Honor Board, and a student member of the Honor Board determined by the Honor Board Leadership. None of the Appeals Board members will have been involved in the adjudication of the Case being appealed. The Adviser may appoint new members to the panel in the event of a conflict or add members as needed. In the latter case, this may result in more than three voting members on the Appeals Board.
The purpose of the Appeals Board is to review all information available pertaining to hearings and proceedings that led to the Appeal to ensure that these were conducted according to the established judicial procedures. The Appeals Board will not substitute its own judgment for a “finding of responsibility” or “sanctions”. Requests for appeal may be made to the Adviser to the Honor Board on the following grounds: Procedural error; New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the Hearing that could change the outcome of the Hearing; Belief that the severity of the Sanction is inappropriate given the details of the Case. Disagreement with the finding(s) or Sanction(s) are not, by themselves, grounds for Appeal.
The Appeals Board may rule in one of three ways:
- They may recommend a new Hearing before a new Facilitation Team
- They may recommend the Case go back to the original Facilitation Team for further review for reasons such as new evidence that was not available during the original Hearing.
- They may recommend that the Appeal be denied.
If the Appeal is denied, the Sanction(s) will be imposed and the College will consider the Case closed. The Appeals Board must inform the Adviser to the Honor Board about the outcome of the Appeal deliberations within 5 (five) business days of the written Appeal being received. The Adviser to the Honor Board will notify, in writing, the Reporter and the Reported of the outcome of the Appeal within 2 (two) business days of receiving the outcome from the Appeals Board.
Barring any extraordinary circumstances, if a request for Appeal is filed, Sanction(s) resulting from the Case will typically be put on hiatus and not implemented until after the Appeal is resolved. If an emergency suspension or dismissal has been administered, the student must leave campus and remain off campus during the Appeal process.
If the student fails to comply with sanctions, the Honor Board Chair and Vice Chair will determine if a noncompliance hearing (which is handled by the Adviser to the Honor Board) is needed or if the Adviser to the Honor Board is granted authority to set up a separate process.
In the event that a faculty or staff member identifies a violation of academic integrity, the faculty or staff member and the Reported have the option to work independently to develop an appropriate Sanction. A summary of the violation and resolution is submitted to the Honor Board Leadership for reviewing and recording.
In the event that a member of the Residential Life team identifies a violation of student handbook policies or the Honor Code, the Residential Life member and the Reported have the option to work independently to develop an appropriate Sanction. A summary of the violation and resolution is submitted to the Honor Board Leadership for reviewing and recording.
While a semester is in session, the Honor Board must meet weekly. It is the responsibility of the Chair and Vice Chair to find a weekly meeting time that works for all the student members of the Honor Board, and the first meeting of each semester must occur at most two weeks after the beginning of the semester. All new members of the Honor Board must receive on-boarding in Honor Board practices before they are assigned to a case. The Honor Board Leadership, including the Advisor to the Honor Board, must also meet weekly.
The Student Government holds an Audit Meeting at the beginning of the final month of each semester. Prior to this Audit Meeting, during the final full month of the semester, the Honor Board is responsible for conducting Audits on the other branches of the Student Government. At least two members of the Honor Board must meet with the leader(s) of each branch to both question their operations and budget usage and evaluate each organization’s compliance with the Governing Documents (Student Constitution, Student Government Bylaws, and Honor Code).
The Auditing Process will go as follows: The Honor Board Chair and Vice Chair will delegate assignments to the Honor Board members on which branch of Student Government they will be auditing. These assignments must be in pairs, and must be established at least two weeks prior to the Audit Meeting. Each pair of Honor Board members must reach out and set a meeting with the leader(s) of their assigned organization. This meeting must happen prior to the Audit Meeting. During the meeting, the Honor Board members will facilitate the meeting and make sure to achieve the following objectives and document their findings: Obtain a summary of the actions and operations of that branch over the duration of the semester, including both operations they have executed and operations they plan to execute during the final month, Obtain a summary of their Budget usage over the duration of the semester, including a report of how much money they have spent and how much they have left, and Examine the Student Government Bylaws and ensure that each organization has carried out the responsibilities listed in the Bylaws. After the meetings, each Auditing pair will send their notes to the Honor Board Chair, who will compile the findings and prepare them for presentation during the Audit Meeting.
At the Audit Meeting, the President of the Council of Olin Representatives (CORe) and the Honor Board Chair should discuss the findings of the Audits and ask for clarification if necessary. If there are discrepancies between the responsibilities of an organization and the findings of an Audit, they will be resolved through a Discrepancy Resolution.
The Audit of the Honor Board will be facilitated by the Dean of Student Affairs or their designee and will involve the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board.
If the Honor Board finds that any portion of the Governing Documents are not being followed by a particular organization, the Honor Board will request that the person(s) responsible resolve the issue before the next Student Government meeting. If the responsible individuals do not resolve the issue in time, the Honor Board may file a Report against those individuals and publish a statement to the community after investigation and resolution through the Honor Board process.
As a student-run organization, the Honor Board Chair, Vice Chair, and General Members are elected by the Student Body. The timings of these elections are as follows:
Six General Members are elected in the second Spring cycle (end of April) to hold their positions until the next Spring cycle, Two General Members are elected in the beginning of Fall (early September) to hold their positions until the beginning of next Fall, and The Honor Board Chair and Vice Chair are elected at the end of December to hold their positions until the end of next December.
It is permissible for CORe and the Honor Board to collaboratively run elections (e.g. run elections for each organization at the same time).
It is the responsibility of the Honor Board to ensure that, after each election cycle, the eight General Members have at least one representative from each grade.
While General Members of the Honor Board may be allowed to hold other positions in Student Government, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Honor Board may not. Additionally, the Chair and Vice Chair cannot be in the same graduating class.
If an Honor Board position becomes vacant (due to resignation, study away, etc.), an election to fill the vacancy occurs during the next election cycle or as part of a special election, if appropriate.
A new Chair is elected if the student garners at more than 50% of the votes by ranked-choice voting. A new Vice Chair is elected if the student is in a different class than the Chair and garners more than 50% of the votes by ranked-choice voting. The General Members are elected to collectively represent all four classes and garner at least 50% of the vote by ranked-choice voting. If candidates for these positions do not meet these conditions, the election for that position will occur in the next scheduled election or as part of a special election, if appropriate.
A vacancy in the position of Chair of the Honor Board is temporarily filled by the Vice Chair of the Honor Board. A vacancy in the position Vice Chair of the Honor Board is temporarily filled by a current member of the Honor Board, to be determined by an internal election run by the Chair. If the positions of both Chair and Vice Chair become vacant simultaneously, the Honor Board must meet as soon as possible to elect a temporary Chair and Vice Chair from its current members. The temporary Chair and Vice Chair are responsible for the proceedings of the Honor Board until a Special Election is held to fill those vacancies. Upon the close of the Special Election, all Honor Board members still in temporary positions return to their originally elected positions and the newly elected members will begin their term.
In the event that a Special Election of a new Chair or Vice Chair of the Honor Board results in a graduating class not having a representative on the Honor Board, a second Special Election is held to elect another member to the Honor Board. This Special Election is open to candidates from the unrepresented class. If no one runs or no candidate receives 50% of the vote, Student Government is allowed to hold an internal nomination process as outlined in theStudent Government Bylaws.
At any time, any student may request an Impeachment Hearing against a member of the Student Government or the Honor Board. An impeachable offense may include:
- Major violation of the Honor Code
- Abuse of power
- Gross neglect of duty
Any impeachment requests against a member of Student Government will be submitted to the Honor Board Chair and must include specific charges that reflect an offense listed above. The Chair of the Honor Board must convene a special Impeachment Hearing meeting of the Student Government no more than 5 (five) business days after the report is received. It is the responsibility of the Chair to moderate Impeachment Hearings.
During an Impeachment Hearing, the Reporter and Reported are given chances to present their arguments. Each is responsible for their respective Witnesses.
At the end of the arguments, the Honor Board Chair will call for a vote, after which members of the quorum will vote on whether the Reported should be impeached from their Student Government position. A vote of ⅔ of the Student Government members present at the hearing who are not the Reported are required for a student to be removed from office.
If a request for impeachment is submitted against an Honor Board member, the Dean of Student Affairs will take the Chair’s position in receiving the report, organizing a Hearing, and moderating an Impeachment Hearing. All members of the Honor Board excluding the Reported are considered quorum and will vote on whether the Reported should be removed from their Honor Board position. A vote of ⅔ of the Honor Board members present at the hearing who are not the accused individual are required for a student to be removed from office. The Dean of Student Affairs does not have voting power, but the outcome of the Hearing is subject to approval by the Dean of Student Affairs.
Within 6 (six) weeks of the start of every academic year, a Town Hall must be called to ratify and/or amend the Honor Code for that academic year.
Any member of the Olin student body may submit a proposal for an amendment to the Honor Code to the Honor Board Chair or Vice Chair at any time. The proposal must include the reasons for the amendment and the proposed wording of the amendment, along with signatures of at least 10% of the student body.
Once the proposal has been brought to the Honor Board, a Town Hall Meeting must be called within the same semester to discuss and vote on the proposed amendment. If the proposal was brought to the Honor Board within the last two weeks of the semester, the Honor Board reserves the right to hold the Town Hall during the first month of the next semester. Multiple amendments may be considered at one Town Hall Meeting. The Town Hall Meeting is open to all of the Olin community, and all students are expected to make an effort to attend. Quorum (half of the student body) must be met to vote on any amendments.
At the close of the meeting, all students present in-person, present on zoom, or otherwise previously informed and adequately knowledgeable of the amendment(s) changes will vote by secret ballot, once per amendment, with the option to vote for each proposed amendment or the unchanged Honor Code. Each amendment that is approved by 50% of the student body will immediately go into effect. If no amendments are approved by 50% of the student body, the Honor Code remains unchanged.
After all proposed amendments are voted upon, all students present in-person, present on Zoom, or previously informed and adequately knowledgeable of the Honor Code will vote by secret ballot on whether or not to abolish the Honor Code. If less than 50% of the student body votes to abolish the Honor Code, the Honor Code remains in effect.
If the Honor Code is abolished, policies drafted by the Student Affairs and Resources Office will take effect immediately. In order to reinstate the Honor Code, a proposal must be submitted to the Student Affairs Office, which will put the issue to a student vote, as per the policies of the Student Affairs and Resources Office.