GUILTY. When I returned from out of town this weekend to find an e-mail from a friend in my inbox telling me the verdict of the Boyd trial, I didn't know what to say. I think I just stared at my computer for a minute or so. Given the -- I am now starting to see, somewhat slanted -- evidence I had been made aware of up to this point, this verdict seemed unthinkable, an atrocity. After reading and hearing about that which took place in the trial, can I say conclusively that Boyd was innocent? No. Would I say that the investigation leading up to his trial was incomplete and highly detrimental to the defense? Certainly. Will I say that Boyd is entitled to a truly fair trial in the appeals process? Absolutely. It is doubtful that anyone would openly oppose this idea. However, ensuring a fair appeals trial for Boyd is not necessarily as simple of a matter as one might initially imagine.
In order to best ensure a fair trial, a new entity separate from the existing Honor Committee itself should be established to deal with the appeals process. Logically, it would seem that the Honor Committee has more of a vested interest in maintaining its initial decisions than a completely separate entity would, because should they overturn their initial decision, this calls into question the effectiveness of the honor system, and could cast doubt onto the true validity of verdicts reached in the past and in the future. This is not to imply that anyone on the Committee would have any malicious intent, in fact I would argue against this possibility 100 percent. However, the fact is that, malicious intent or not, there is no denying that when the good name and reputation of a group of which one is a member -- and thus by extension one's own good name -- are on the line, one tends to (whether consciously or subconsciously) look at any situation through a somewhat tainted lens.
Guilt or innocence aside, either out of a desire to distract from the reality of his case or of vengeance toward a system that wrongly accused him of dishonesty, Boyd attempted to make a mockery of the honor system. He was loud, he was conspicuous, and to many inside the system, he was no doubt highly annoying. Perhaps he thought this would help his case, but it is doubtful that many inside the system were swayed by his efforts. Something Boyd evidently failed to realize was that, though an article in The Declaration might get him 15 minutes of fame, it also will inevitably heighten the stake that the Honor Committee has in his conviction. Should Boyd have been acquitted after having openly mocked the system for so long, it is likely that many would interpret this as a failure of the system, and his mockery would have been legitimized.
When the guilty verdict was announced, the honor system escaped the burden of having to publicly defend their ability to successfully deliver justice. Had he been acquitted, the honor system would have come into some highly public questioning. Under normal circumstances, an acquittal should not call into question the legitimacy of the system, but this case was different. Boyd spent the last few months mocking the honor system and trying to make it seem absurd for accusing him in the first place. Should he have been found not guilty, this would have seemingly made his critique legitimate.
This point is not made to suggest that the Honor Committee would knowingly convict an innocent student to save its name and preserve its legacy, but the fact remains that it is nearly impossible to escape the lens of self-interest in high pressure situations. Given this fact, an imbalance of power -- for instance, a defendant with no control over proceedings -- is dangerous when self-interests are entered into circumstances like that of a trial. Clearly such an imbalance is present in any trial -- but it will only be increased in the honor appeals process. Boyd has openly and publicly attacked the honor system for nearly an entire semester. The system has convicted him once. It will not reflect highly upon the Committee -- in fact it will (fairly or not) reflect very poorly -- should honor reverse its initial decision. To think that this factor could not possibly play a role in an appeals process would be naive.
I do not question for a moment the conscious integrity of the individuals on the Honor Committee. However, in a court of law, jurors who tend toward partiality to one side or another in a given case are asked not to serve due to their seeming inability to look at the given situation objectively. Although no Committee members who have been involved with the initial Boyd trial would be allowed to serve in its appeal, the new body's members are still part of a system that's public image has an interest in the permanent conviction of Adam Boyd. This is why the allowance for an appeal (a responsibility which would normally lie with three Honor Committee members and a non-voting Appeal chair) and the execution of a new hearing should be passed to a more unbiased body.
We need to remember that for all of its high-minded rhetoric and ideals, the honor system -- like everything else -- is still run by humans subject to human weakness and fallibility. Given these facts, since we have the liberty to establish an independent body to review appeals should we so desire, we at the University should jump to take advantage of this opportunity. Although we cannot claim that the appeals process, left to be handled by the Honor Committee would certainly result in injustice, there is no question that a body separated from the interests of the system would be more easily able to act in a truly objective fashion. Because such a body would be unaffiliated with the honor system, there could be no possibility of personal interests entering into a decision.
In light of this fact, there is no reason why we should not pursue such a possibility. This idea should be explored, not in spite of the honor system, but rather in the hopes of more fully realizing its principles: to "seek the way of Honor, the light of Truth, and the will to work for men."
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily
associate editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
