In 1999, a student-led initiative created the Lee-Allen Honor Code, which applies to all students and faculty regarding issues of academic honesty. Jerome Washington was found guilty of violating the Honor Code by the campus judicial board. President Brown requested the failing grade be removed from Washington’s transcript, in part because Washington was told by a faculty member that the grade would be removed if he retook the class. Faculty and students protested the move by Brown, leading to his resignation. Brown hoped that this would calm the crisis on campus. It did not. All of this comes down to one key issue – a loss of confidence in the leadership of the university.
Political issues identified: Leadership didn’t frame issue. Instead, they let the opposition define it. Leadership didn’t engage opposition. They didn’t have a “sit-down” to hear other side and present own views, nor did they try to negotiate a solution. Leadership didn’t build coalition. They didn’t have allies in community supporting Board/President’s position, nor did they have people speaking on behalf of Board/President in the community.
Dealing with different constituencies (stakeholders) – alumni, students, faculty, community. All groups appear to want the honor code upheld and followed.
“ Help us restore the honor code”
Need to recognize those who represented the honor code
The more groups we can convince that the honor code is restored, the better off we’ll be
Blue Ribbon Panel – to be discussed later
We want to restore credibility on the University and honor code; not beat down the naysayers
Listen to what the stakeholders have to say
Principle is the maintenance of the honor code (Board agrees); tangible issue (the board’s focus) is the restoration of credibility.
Need to address the issue of the honor code asap
“ LAU’s honor code has been tested and we’ve seen the response of those that the honor code was supposed to inspire” – focus on the positive (i.e, those who acted by the honor code).