The smaller issues were raised as a series of motions; two passed and one failed. The first motion, introduced by Williamson, called for a system of honors that would allow students to graduate with two levels of honors: English and Latin.
Professors opened the discussion by addressing the potential consequences of conferring two levels of honors and whether students should be allowed to receive both Latin and English honors versus one or the other.
"I share the concerns of my colleagues for encouraging students to pursue honors," said Professor of Mathematics Greg Call. "I worry if we proceed with English and Latin Honors as exclusive, it will be a disincentive to do honors work. English honors are better than an unknown level of honors. We are better served in keeping the two systems simultaneously."
After amending the language of the course catalog to read "English honors are awarded to students solely on the basis of performance in course work," the faculty passed the motion allowing students to graduate with two levels of honors.
The second motion called for the faculty to "expand English honors to three levels." High Distinction, Distinction and Honors. In the current system, only two levels exist: High distinction and distinction. "This motion establishes symmetry between levels of honors in Latin and levels of honors in English," said Professor of English and Russian Dale Peterson. "But there is debate about whether it establishes symmetry ... Currently, Latin honors has a double standard of qualification and English honors has only one."
Professor of Chemistry David Hansen, who opened the debate on this motion, expressed doubts about the necessity for additional levels of English honors. "For coursework alone, two levels is enough," he said.
Professor of Psychology and WAGS Rose Olver raised an additional concern over the language of the motion. "I find this [the use of the word 'Honors' for the third level] very confusing," said Olver. "If we end up with more than two levels, we should propose to change the name."
The faculty did not pass the second motion; English honors will remain with only two levels, High Distinction and Distinction.
The third motion continued to modify the qualifications for English honors; it was a motion to "make English Honors dependent on class rank rather than GPA."
This motion led to a more general discussion of the problem of grade inflation at the College and how the problem should be addressed. The adoption of the third motion was viewed as a temporary solution to grade inflation by several professors.
"People have described this motion as dealing with grade inflation through the back door. I wonder where the front door might be," said Assistant Professor of Computer Science Scott Kaplan. "This might be a reasonable step."
Professor of History David Blight viewed the adoption of the percentage system as a temporary solution to grade inflation. "Our grading system is a conversation with students that has been corrupted," he said. "We should do percentages now, then come back to it."
But professors were concerned by the potential for increased "grade-grubbing" and competition among students. "Borderline students would grub for grades more," said Professor of Physics Kannan Jagannathan.
"I do support a percentage system. Either one [GPA or percentage] has arbitrariness, but I believe that we can exert some reasoned control over it. A percentage system implies that honors should be a relative scarcity," he added. "If honors is to have any meaning, it can't be totally universal."
The third motion was voted upon through a secret paper ballot. The motion passed by a vote of 54 yes, 43 no, and 10 abstentions, in favor of using class rank to determine English honors. The faculty will continue its adjustment of the new honors system at its next meeting on Mar. 5.