Norton

A Joint Honor Council-Administrative Panel

Abstract Released Fall 2002

Abstract Discussions:

Thursday September 26^th at 12:30 and 6:00 in the Sunken Lounge

Introduction:

         The Office of Safety and Security contacted the Dean of the College to inform him that an officer had been called to a college building on a report of damaged and vandalized property. The officer spoke to a staff member who had encountered the damage. This staff member mentioned seeing Norton in the building the night before and that he might be involved. The officer then interviewed Norton, who admitted to being in the building the night before, but did not remember most of the evening. The Dean of the College contacted Honor Council with this information. Honor Council came to consensus on a suspicion of violation. Honor Council then reached consensus to send the matter to a Joint Honor Council-Administrative Panel.

Statement of Parties:

Norton's Statement:

            Norton stated that he was at an informal event with faculty and students that evening at which time he was given permission to take a bottle of alcohol. He said he arrived at the college building in question at 11:30 P.M. with another student. At that time he continued drinking from the bottle of alcohol. Norton said that he knew he was becoming intoxicated. The other student left around 12:30 A.M. Norton said he kept drinking, but he didn't remember the rest of the events of the night. When he checked his voicemail the next morning there were two messages from a staff member (the same staff member mentioned in the Introduction). Norton called the individual back. That person informed Norton about the damage and vandalism to the building. He said he had seen Norton there the night before and had informed Security of this fact. Security came to Norton's room later that morning to interview him. Norton said he had his first meeting with Psychological Services that day and has continued to have regular appointments. He also met with the Substance Abuse Counselor and has been going to substance abuse program meetings. Norton told the panel that he has not had a drink since that night. He also told the panel that he met with, and apologized to, the parties affected by his behavior. Norton also tried to clean up some of the vandalism.

Panel Questions:

            The panel asked Norton a number of questions in order to better understand the events of that night. The following is a summary of his responses.

            Norton did notice that he was having too much to drink at the party, but he couldn't stop himself. Not everyone at the party was drinking, but they finished several bottles of alcohol during the party and then Norton took a large bottle of alcohol with him when he left.

            Norton had been drinking fairly heavily since coming to college, but he had never had a similar experience in which he blackedout and could not remember what happened during the rest of the evening.

            Norton was worried before going to the party. He had been under a lot of stress both at school and with his family. He was worried about schoolwork and arguments he had been having with his family, but Norton felt he was in a relatively good mood just before the party.

            He now admits to having a drinking problem.

Panel Deliberations:

            The panel decided that more information was needed from the other parties involved. Although none wanted to be an official confronting party, panel members spoke to them to find out their opinions of what happened and of Norton's status among his peers and professors. After much deliberation and taking all the information into account, the panel came to consensus on the following statements of violation.

Statements of Violation:

1.     The student violated the Honor Code by failing to maintain the climate of "trust, concern, and respect" as outlined in the Honor Code (Introduction).

2.     The student violated the Alcohol Policy by drinking alcohol in a public space (Article II, Section 2).[1]

Resolution Deliberations:

            The panel took into consideration the fact that Norton had already begun dealing with the situation.

The panel deliberated about the appropriateness of separation in this situation. After much discussion, the panel decided that Norton would not benefit from separation and that there were more proactive ways of holding him accountable for his actions.

The panel also deliberated about how much time of on-campus community service was appropriate and settled on forty hours as a reasonable amount. The panel then came to consensus on the following resolutions.

Resolutions:

1. The student will pay for all damages incurred as a result of his actions.

2. The student will do forty hours of community service work on campus. (The details of this resolution have been changed to maintain confidentiality).

3. The Student will spend thirteen hours for each remaining semester working with an agency or agencies dedicated to addressing the misuse of alcohol. Counseling or service may count towards these hours. The panel expects the student to continue this work through the summers. The student will submit written proof of completion of this resolution to his Dean at the end of each semester.

4. The panel strongly encourages the student to continue seeing the alcohol counselor and a counselor at Psychological Services during the student's time at Haverford.

5. The student will re-sign his Honor Code pledge at the conclusion of this hearing to affirm that he will not engage in destructive or aggressive behavior on this campus and submit this to his Dean.

6. The student will write letters of apology to each party affected by his actions.

7. If the student is found in violation of the Alcohol Policy and/or the Honor Code for destructive or aggressive behavior we ask that future panels (Honor Council or JSAAPP) be advised of his previous infractions and resolutions. The Dean of the College will be responsible for informing the chair(s) of the panel(s) at an appropriate time.

Questions:

1. Would separation have been appropriate in this case?

2. Should there have been a separate JSAAPP trial?

3. Should there be limitations on student/faculty interactions involving alcohol and/or should there be a more structured space for interactions between faculty and students with alcohol to promote responsible drinking?