Present: Rachel Batsford, Jamie Biggam, Tim Dutcher, Kara Garcia, Daphne Heidkamp, Peter Ingebretson, Elizabeth Jackson (Secretary), Morgan Lloyd (Chair), Alex Lowry, Laura McTighe, Anthony Minko, Lea Monte, Emily Picon, Rob Tambyraja, Christina West, Dan Zibel

Special Guests: The discussion of the Multicultural Juror List was held in conjunction with the SC and House of Interest meeting.

Please Note: There were no Honor Council minutes last week because Honor Council was at the George School doing their semesterly Mediation/Diversity/Awareness Training.

I. Multicultural Juror List Discussion - Honor Council joined SC and the representatives to the House of Interest for a discussion of the Multicultural Juror List. Morgan explained that the Multicultural Juror List is a list of students at Haverford who identify themselves as multicultural. It is a self-defined list in the sense that individuals are responsible for putting themselves on and taking themselves off the list. There must be 3 multicultural jurors (out of 12) on every jury, and 2 multicultural panel members (out of 6) for every Student Facilitation Panel. The Secretary of Honor Council maintains the Multicultural Juror List. Elizabeth noted that after she sent out the mass email regarding this list, she received a number of responses from community members who were concerned about the existence of the list, the confidentiality of the list, and the definition of the list. Morgan went on to say that the MJL was put into the Code as a result of several cases where confronted/confronting parties felt that they had not received a fair trial due to the mainstream composition of the jury. The purpose of the list is to ensure that any jury will be representative of the greater Haverford community.

Several people expressed concern with the definition of multicultural and the fact that anyone can put themselves on the list for any reason. They suggested creating a more specific definition of multicultural. Others responded that since everyone's definition of multicultural is different, there is no way to define the list so that it would not be exclusive. A few people mentioned that, ideally, any randomly selected jury should be representative of the larger community and should reflect the diversity of opinion of the Haverford community. They noted, however, that the MJL resolution arose because people who were on trial felt that they had not had a completely representative jury. The reasons for the development of the MJL resolution indicate that the composition of the jury, in terms of race, class, gender, or any number of characteristics is important to the parties involved and does effect the trial process.

One community member expressed his belief that the premise of the MJL is fundamentally flawed because it derives from mistrust of the ability of any randomly selected juror to give someone a fair trial. He believes that it lacks definition and is thus meaningless. Others responded that the lack of definition is a positive attribute because it allows people to determine for themselves if they have a background or opinions that differ from the mainstream. The idea behind the MJL is to ensure that no jury or panel will be all white, all male, all female, all Freshmen, all Seniors, or really all anything. Juries/panels should, as much as possible, consist of diverse points of view and a representative cross-section of the community. The MJL seeks to address these concerns.

The final topic of discussion was the confidentiality of the MJL. Currently, the MJL is not confidential. The only copy is maintained by the Secretary and as such is not widely published. One community member expressed his belief that the list should be made confidential in order to ensure that students feel comfortable putting their names on the list for any reason they feel is valid.

The purpose of this discussion was for Honor Council to gain community feedback on the issue of the Multicultural Juror List, given that so many students responded to the mass email with concerns. If you have further comments/questions/concerns, please address them to your nearest Honor Council member.

II. Brief Interlude - Honor Council adjourned to the Smith Room to conduct the regular portion of the meeting.

III. Moment of Silence

IV. Project Reports

A. JSAAPP - Emily and Tim reported that JSAAPP has only had one meeting thus far to discuss the Party Guidelines that came out last week.

B. Survey - Laura and Daphne have been continuing work on the Honor Council survey that was drafted last semester. The purpose of the survey is to get feedback about how the community feels about/perceives the Honor Code and Honor Council itself. Al suggested that the survey include a question at the bottom asking people (anonymously) if they have ever violated the academic Honor Code. Several Council members felt that this question would produce either a false statistic or no response whatsoever. Dan felt that the responses to this question would give Council an indication of whether or not the Code is working and might indicate that changes are necessary. Lea suggested that we simply ask people if they think the Code works. Council reached no conclusion on this issue, but Daphne will be emailing the survey to all Council members who should then reply with questions, concerns and comments.

C. Web Page - Al reported that he has been working hard on the Honor Council web page and is currently trying to figure out how to get all old abstracts on the page without having to re-type them all because he's 'not a masochist.' Tim mentioned that he would be willing to help out.

D. HCO Liaisons - Morgan asked that all Council members check in with their HCO liaisons to see how abstract discussions within Customs Groups have been going. Lea said that she attended an abstract discussion recently and had a few questions from the group:

Q: If A and B are in the same class and have both taken the exam, is it okay for A and B to discuss the exam?

A: Ideally, they would not discuss the exam until everyone in the class has taken it because one never knows who is standing nearby. However, if A and B are alone in a room, with the windows and doors closed and the music on, they could conceivably discuss the exam. It's probably best to wait.

Q: Can A ask a friend, B, how an exam went, if, for example, A knows that B was particularly worried about the exam?

A: If A is not in the class, and if A and B are alone, it would be okay for A to ask B about how B is feeling after the exam, but it's really not okay for A to ask B anything specific about the exam.

E. Abstract Binder - Kara and Emily have just started working on getting the Abstract Binders back in order.

F. Computing Pseudo-Abstract - Peter and Rob are in the process of writing a pseudo abstract regarding computing concerns. The purpose of the abstract is to give some examples of the kinds of computing practices that are questionable under the Honor Code. It will be used in HCO-Customs Group discussions.

V. Abstract Discussion - Albert, April & Wendy - Morgan is in the process of typing up a summary of last Thursday's abstract discussion. The summary will include answers to questions raised at the meeting . . . so keep your eyes on the Honor Council Board (next to the SC Board in the Mailroom) and the Comment Board.

VI. Chair Elections- Elizabeth announced the schedule for the upcoming elections: Nominations & Bi-Co write-ups will be due at midnight on Tuesday November 25. Speeches will be December 2. Balloting will be December 3, 4, and 5. We're only having one (1) Chair election this year.

**Anyone interested in running should contact Morgan or Elizabeth right away**

VII. Moment of Silence