Honor Psychological Evaluations Meet Modern Science

This post represents the thoughts and opinions of Sam Leven only.

In the 1970’s and 80’s, when the Honor Committee recognized that psychological factors needed to be considered when judging Honor Offenses, it identified two possible areas of concern. First would be mental or medical conditions that prevent a student from being able to know that the act they were committing could be considered an Honor Offense. This was called a Contributory Mental Disorder (CMD). The second area of concern was students who, by reason of some mental or medical condition, lacked the capacity to mount a proper defense, and as a result should not be forced to stand trial. This was called a Lack of Capacity (LC).

The Honor Committee also recognized that most University students were not capable of making the judgment as to whether or not these psychological conditions were legitimate, and so the modern psychological procedures were born. Instead of going to trial and making an “insanity” defense there, students claiming a CMD or LC take themselves out of the Honor System altogether, and instead have their psychological claims evaluated by an expert panel appointed by the Vice-President for Student Affairs. These panels usually consist of some combination of faculty members, trained psychologists, and staff members. If a student is found to have a CMD, the Honor charges are dropped, and the student must complete certain requirements (usually therapy, and often a short-term time away from school) or else face the re-filing of the Honor charges.

Additionally, the panel must decide if the student poses a “significant risk” of committing more Honor Offenses. If the panel finds that the student does pose such a risk, the student is suspended until the panel finds that the student no longer poses such a risk. The idea of this assessment is recognizing the purpose of our Honor System to begin with is to keep our community free of Honor Offenses.

Similarly, if a student is found to have an LC, the student is not required to go to Trial. Instead, the student’s case is suspended until the student regains the capacity to defend him or herself.

When these procedures were established, however, the Honor Committee recognized that they could easily be abused. Savvy and dishonest students could try to make up claims of a CMD to prolong their case while hoping that many of the witnesses of their offense might forget important information during the months that a psychological evaluation for a CMD often takes. Similarly, a student with a condition that would qualify as an LC had no deterrent whatsoever from committing as many Honor Offenses as he or she wanted to. As a result, the Honor Committee adopted two caveats to the psychological claims. First, to claim a CMD, the student must admit that he or she committed the act in question. As a result, if a CMD is denied, the student may only defend him or herself on the grounds of intent or triviality at Trial, as the jury will be informed that act has been confessed. Second, a student found to have an LC is automatically found to be a “significant risk,” and is suspended until the LC ends.

The system above, however, assumes that there are no disorders that could be both a CMD and qualify as an LC as well. Since that time, psychological study has shown otherwise. The most obvious example of this is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If a student was in the middle of a traumatic event or period at the time of the alleged offense, and the student suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder afterwards, the traumatic event would very likely be a CMD, but Post-Traumatic Stress often destroys or damages an individual’s memories of the trauma and everything going on at the time of the trauma. As a result, the student likely will not remember the alleged offense at all.

In this situation, a student has a legitimate claim to both a CMD and an LC, but both frivolous claim deterrents seem unfair. If a student cannot remember any of the events surrounding a trauma, and the student feels that he or she is generally extremely honest, the student probably will not believe that he or she actually committed the alleged act. As a result, the student would probably be unwilling to admit act, and unfairly be deprived of a CMD hearing. Similarly, if the student is generally honest, and there’s strong evidence that, if an offense occurred at all, it was just due to that trauma, it also seems improper to declare the student a “significant risk.”

This situation comes up more often than most realize. I, myself, have served on a case where an issue similar to this one arose, and I have heard stories to lead me to believe that I am not alone. While these situations are rare, this is nonetheless a hole in our current system. So, what’s the best way to patch up this hole?

What Would You Do?

There are several possibilities. We could eliminate the automatic finding of “significant risk” for lack of capacity and leave that up to the same panel that decide if the LC actually exists. However, in such a case, what should the deterrent for frivolous LC claims be? Similarly, we could eliminate the admission of act requirement for CMD claims, but again, how do we then deter frivolous claims? We could create a third category of psychological evaluations specially for combined CMD/LC claims, but what would the procedures, findings, results, and deterrents be? We could also eliminate the deterrents for both CMD and LC and just accept that some frivolous claims will occur, so some cases will take a long period of time. Finally, we could end the prohibition on using psychological evidence at trial and give students the choice between pursuing the certified psychological panel route or trying to make a psychological argument to get off at trial.

All of these ideas have positives and pitfalls, but it seems unfair to keep putting students in these challenging situations through yet another challenge. What would you recommend?