The Honor Committee voted 14-2-1 last night to put a referendum on the spring ballot for a constitutional amendment which would eliminate the seriousness clause in cases of academic dishonesty.
The proposed amendment would remove the seriousness clause from the trial stage for the honor offense of academic cheating, yet it would remain in the Investigative Panel stage. All cases are heard first by an I-Panel which determines whether there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial.
In order for the amendment to pass, it needs a three-fifths majority in an election where at least 10 percent of the student body votes in favor of the amendment.
The Committee debated issues of when the constitutional amendment would go into effect and how it would proceed if passed.
|
The Committee voted on and passed two contingent bylaws that would go into effect upon the passing of the amendment.
The bylaws will help clearly articulate to students the changes that would be made as a result of passage of the amendment.
Committee Chairman Hunter Ferguson said the contingent bylaw changes will appear in pamphlets that will be printed this week.
Vice Chairman for Education Peter Leary said he saw the bylaws as a way of giving the amendment "to students in complete form."
"We should not allow students to make an uninformed decision," he said.
But not all Committee members agreed with the proposed constitutional amendment.
Vice Chairman for Services Cordel Faulk said he voted against the proposal because the proposed amendment is "dishonest."
"We should ask students if they want to get rid of the seriousness clause" in the whole process, Faulk said.
"It's not fair that the students don't have the right to determine seriousness," while the Investigation Panel does, he said.
"If you are going to take seriousness away from the community, you should take it away from everybody," he added.
Ferguson questioned when the constitutional amendment will take effect if passed.
Education Rep. Jim Haley said it "should take effect with the new board" in April.
Vice Chairman for Investigations Carter Williams said he was worried about letting the amendment take effect so soon.
Williams said he wanted it to begin taking effect in the fall term because it would "give us the whole summer" to prepare for the changes.
Leary proposed the contingent bylaw because he said the Committee should outline how the constitutional amendment would affect procedure before giving it to the students to decide upon.
Architecture Rep. Scott Sottile said he voted against the two bylaw changes because he did not feel they were voted on in the proper manner. Sottile said he felt the process was too rushed.
The Committee also voted on but did not pass another proposal, presented by Vice Chairwoman for Trials Terra Weirch, to change the number of College Representatives.
Read More
Winsome Earle-Sears talks higher education in first U.Va. event of the campaign
By Ford McCracken | 17 hours agoA Jamaican immigrant and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Earle-Sears is the first female lieutenant governor of Virginia,
U.Va.'s Earth Day Eco-Fair 2025 spotlights sustainability advocacy
By Leigh Bailey | 17 hours agoStudents from Contracted Independent Organizations and University Office of Sustainability leadership programs each shared their unique perspectives about sustainability advocacy on Grounds.
Student Council votes to relocate Hereford orchard and basketball hoop
By Lauren Seeliger | YesterdayStudent Council passed a resolution Tuesday to relocate the orchard and basketball hoop of Hereford Residential College due to construction in the surrounding area.
