Students Reject New Honor Code Proposal

Students rejected the proposed updates to the Honor Code in a vote on Monday, with 575 respondents voting against and 39 voting in favor. The Association of Amherst Students (AAS) announced in an email Tuesday night that the Honor Code will remain unchanged. 

Prior to the student vote, the College Council — a body composed of faculty, students, and staff that helps determine policies in academic integrity and faculty-student relations — held a Q&A session last Thursday to address student concerns. The session was held after the document was vetted by the Faculty Executive Committee. Student representatives were absent from the conversation due to illness and exams.

Department Chair of Asian Languages and Civilizations Timothy J. Van Compernolle opened the discussion by describing separate conversations he had with two seniors last year, when the Honor Code update was first proposed. According to Van Compernolle, the first student supported the changes because the revised code is shorter, easier to recite, and is more likely to occupy a prominent place in students’ lives.

The second student opposed the changes, worrying that removing student rights from the Honor Code eliminates them from one of the few major institutional documents where students have meaningful input. These two views, as Van Compernolle sees it, describe “two different perspectives on the possibility of a new Honor Code,” both of which he considers to be “very legitimate.”

Attending students were concerned about what they described as a lack of communication and urgency surrounding the new Honor Code. “The email was sent yesterday, with the town hall scheduled today, and then the vote next week. I’m not really understanding why this is such a short time frame,” Ronan Olson ’28 said.

AAS President Shane Dillon ’26 explained that the email announcing the new Honor Code was sent late due to the snow day on Feb. 23. The updated Honor Code was also not attached to the announcement email. “On behalf of the AAS, we do apologize for not including [the updated Honor Code],” Dillon said.

Van Compernolle added that the voting process is taking place now — rather than last year when the revision was first proposed — in order to better inform students about the situation. “One thing we realize is we did not do, in fact, the adequate outreach to the students [last year] to help them understand the issues,” he said. “There was a lot of misunderstanding that we perceived, so we needed to take a little extra time to figure out what exactly we needed to do.”

Another reason for the timing, as Van Compernolle explained, is that the changes also need to be approved by the faculty, which only meets once a month. If the proposal passes the student vote, the Council hopes to have the decision voted on by the faculty in April. “Knowing that it is often the case that when something is on the faculty agenda, we don’t get to it … we are trying to build in a little bit of a buffer there,” Van Compernolle said.

Assistant Professor of Economics Jakina Debnam Guzman also described the potential benefits of this streamlining from the faculty perspective. She explained that the new shortened and simplified Honor Code can help “find some way of centralizing and vocalizing what we want to stand for in the community.”

AAS Vice President Phuong Doan ’26 described another fear, worrying that “by removing the language from the Honor Code, even though it’s in the Code of Conduct, is … remov[ing] the aspiration.” Doan asked whether the Council considered adding the three-sentence proposed Honor Code to the current Honor Code’s preamble, while preserving the rest of the current language. 

While the Council has considered this idea, Director of Community Standards Corey J. Michalos said the preamble “is not anything the students can go on,” so changing it would likely have little practical effect. According to Michalos, the points in the preamble merely “point to the larger policies.” He added that the current preamble does not adequately represent the variety of documents it refers to, including nondiscrimination, Title IX, and other policies.

Michalos also addressed concerns around the new Honor Code reducing student rights. “If you read through these [sections], you will see that these are actually enshrined in law,” he said. “Even if we assume a malevolent administration [that] is trying to erode the rights of our students, this could not go away without years of undoing legal precedent in our state and country.” 

Michalos added that the Honor Code, even in its current form, would have no weight if its underlying laws were to change. Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Angie Tissi-Gassoway also clarified that if the Honor Code were to conflict with the college’s other policies, the latter would have higher priority. “[The Honor Code] is not adjudicable at all. We cannot actually use it to move any kind of process forward,” she said.

Some attendees also pointed out that the Honor Code is meant to represent the college’s values and therefore cannot be shortened. AAS Senator Hedley Lawrence-Apfelbaum ’26 responded by stating that, from his knowledge, very few students had read the Honor Code prior to this debate. On the other hand, he argued that the new Honor Code could be put on assessment papers and presented during orientation events, showcasing the community’s values. “It is only aspirational if people know about it,” he said.

Amid the differing perspectives raised during the discussion, Van Compernolle emphasized that the goal of the event was to ensure the students clearly understood the proposal before casting their votes. “One of the things that we are trying to do here and other venues is simply clarifying what the debate is about … We want everyone to know what they are actually voting for,” he said.