A report written by the CEP detailed five new honors options. The formal discussion at the meeting last night centered around these options. On the ballot, the faculty also had the freedom to create an "Option VI." Faculty members ranked these options on their ballot, from 1 to 5.
Professor of Biology Patrick Williamson, chair of the CEP, presented the proposal to the faculty. "Our hope is that we can bring to you the beginning of a process of closure."
"I want to assure the faculty that our reasoning will be transparent," said CEP member and Professor of English and Russian Dale Peterson.
Professor of Philosophy Jonathan Vogel expressed concern over the voting system, which will only allow one option to be considered against the current system. "There are so many problems with preferential voting," he said. "I'm a little worried that the constituency for Options III and IV would be split."
Williamson responded to his concerns, explaining that this system would allow the faculty to "sit down and think if the option [voted as most preferable] is preferable to the current system, without pining away for our [individual preferences]."
Professor of Physics Kannan Jagannathan brought up the point that after voting on this issue is complete, "Any member of the faculty is free to propose an amendment," according to their dissatisfactions with the option chosen through the vote.
The faculty then proceeded to focus on the elements involved in each option. "There are several preferable outcomes here. No honors is OK, because ... the transcript speaks for itself," said Dean of New Students Francis Couvares. "The idea that we're going to reward students for successful grade-grubbing is entirely unappealing.".
Professor of English Barry O'Connell echoed this sentiment. "I do not want a system that rewards course grades any more than the transcript and Phi Beta Kappa," he said. "I don't mind a distinction for grades, but not an ounce more," he added, in reference to English honors.
Other members of the faculty voiced their disagreement with the idea that honors, or Latin honors, should solely be based on independent work. "I think students that are here for four years should get recognition for ... excellent work across the board," said Associate Professor of Philosophy Jyl Gentzler.
Some faculty members argued strongly for the elimination of honors. "I'd like to say a few kind words for no honors," said Associate Professor of English and WAGS Michele Barale. "I don't believe that you have to award honors for students to do independent and wonderful work."
Professor of Chemistry David Hansen also supported a no-honors policy. "It seems to me that the options either reward work that ought to be rewarded, but are not fair across the board, or they award honors fairly, but for work we don't think ought to be honored."