The October 19 open honor trial of Adam Boyd is the first in two years, and is considered a rarity for the honor system. Honor trials generally are held privately and discreetly. The open trial, however, gives students an inside look into the workings of the system, and by theory, if a student is innocent they should have nothing to hide. The Honor Committee should do more to encourage open honor trials, and hopefully these will become more common.
On Feb. 23, 2001, the Committee released the results of a poll, that, while unscientific, was designed in such a way to be statistically representative of the student body. This poll showed that students are losing faith in the honor system. Over a quarter of the students surveyed felt negatively about the honor system, and over half believed that the honor code offers few benefits. In addition, proposals concerning revamping the single sanction and last year's Bloomfield scandal have brought into question the moral grounds of honor at the University.
Open honor trials could strengthen honor's fragile state. Students attending an open trial are able to see how the normally mysterious honor system truly works. This not only restores faith in the system, but also gives students the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the approach currently being used is effective, and whether the verdicts are fair or not. After all, the honor system is supposed to be an integral part of every student's experience at the University, and it is only fitting that students should be allowed to see what exactly is going on.
An open trial can do much for an accused party at the University. In theory, if a student is going to trial, it is because he believes himself to be innocent of the honor crimes of which he has been accused. If he truly is innocent of the alleged honor violation, he has nothing to fear from a jury of his peers or from the exhibition of his trial to everyone and anyone that can get a seat. On the contrary, an open trial should in most cases be seen as a benefit because the accused has the opportunity to ultimately and publicly clear any doubt associated with their alleged guilt. With the closed trial system, there is the potential for rumors to surface concerning a student that may be on trial. A public trial would make known all the facts involved.
There are some drawbacks to the open trial. To begin with, a student that undergoes an honor trial could be concerned that knowledge of the charges against him might permanently tarnish his reputation.
An open trial also puts a great deal of pressure on student jurors. Their participation in an honor trial is done as a favor to the honor system, as they have to take time out of their own schedules to uphold the standards of the honor system. In an open trial, they would have to deal with even more stress as they would be placed in the public eye, their decisions possibly subject to scrutiny by any member of the University.
According to Committee Chairman Christopher Smith, a student is offered the choice between having a private or public honor trial when filling out a trial request form. The Committee sees no difference between the two trial styles.
Yet, in a phone interview with Adam Boyd, the student whose public trial is slated for Oct. 19, he claimed that his suggestion for a public trial was met with apprehension from his honor advisor and others within the system. He says he was repeatedly asked whether he was sure he wanted to go through with the proceeding, ultimately contacting Smith to articulate his serious desire to carry through with an open trial and his knowledge of the implications involved.
Perhaps the Committee is hesitant to endorse public trials because of the media scrutiny directed both at the honor system and the jurors in the case.
Still, honor educators and advisors should be more supportive of the open honor trial option, emphasizing student awareness of the existence of the public trial and its benefits.
Even though there are shortcomings generated by open honor trials, the positive aspects involved outweigh the negative. This arrangement clearly tests the honor system to its limit under the public eye, and, through that exercise, makes the honor system grow stronger. Although there should never be a decision that makes open trials mandatory, the Committee should encourage accused honor violators to file for an open trial to publicly prove their innocence.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears
Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.
He can be reached at
arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | 7 hours agoIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | 19 hours agoThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
CASTAGNO: Intensifying security theater in schools does not make them safer
By Conall Costagno | March 24, 2025Adding more stringent security measures will not solve the underlying issue, which is that schools must do more to invest in students’ mental health.
