THE RECENT open honor trial was a great way for the University community to gain insight into the day-to-day process of the honor system. Although the first stages of the case process (the investigation and the investigation panel) were not open to the public, the trial sheds light on the final and most important part of the process.
Before discussing the specifics of the recent open trial, it is important to understand the three criteria for a guilty verdict in an Honor trial: act, intent and seriousness. The jury first discusses act, then intent, then votes on the two criteria in one vote. If four-fifths of the jury votes guilty on this standard, the panel discusses and votes on the seriousness criterion. In order to be found guilty on seriousness (and thus dismissed from the University), a simple majority of the jury must vote guilty.
The above criteria are the key factors discussed throughout the trial. Both counsel for the community and counsel for the accused work to prove or disprove act, intent and/or seriousness from the interpretation of the evidence provided to the jury.
For those of you unfamiliar with the specifics of the open trial, Joseph Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung were accused of collaborating on a number of homework response questions in their PLPT 302 class. A total of 30 assignments were collected, and 10 of these were graded for weight of 20 percent of the final grade.
The papers in question clearly involved some form of collaboration. There was no question that papers this similar could only be created by working together. In fact, this point was hardly argued in the trial. The primary defense of the students was that they did not know they could not collaborate. They claimed to be ignorant of the honor policy regarding the assignments in question, though the syllabus for the course did state: "The honor code applies to these assignments: you are to answer these questions without anyone's help." One of the students stated that he or she was unclear as to what "anyone" meant in the syllabus. The student had assumed that "anyone" did not include other students.
Even though the students presented the defense of not knowing that collaboration was against the honor policies of the course, the honor by-laws do not accept ignorance as an acceptable defense. A student is guilty on the intent criteria if "he or she knew, or should have known, that the act was or could have been considered lying, cheating, or stealing."
Under this definition, the jury found Schlingbaum and McClung guilty on act and intent. The jury did not accept that a reasonable student should not know the honor policy for an assignment when it is so clearly laid out in the course syllabus.
After finding the students guilty on the act and intent criteria, the jury considered the seriousness criterion. The standard under this criterion is whether the open toleration of the act would be inconsistent with the community of trust. After some discussion, less than half of the jury voted guilty on seriousness, rendering a not guilty verdict for the trial.
Many of the jury members believed that the two students should have known that the act was an honor offense but did not actually know that it was an offense. Thus, the students were still guilty on act and intent, but the jury did not feel that the students' failure to understand the honor policy would lead to the dissolution of the community of trust.The particular act in question, under these specific circumstances, did not warrant a guilty verdict.
The verdict in this trial is by no means a signal that all students think cheating on homework response questions is not serious. It is also not a signal that a student could not be dismissed from the University for ignorance of the honor code. The decision simply means that the jurors in this case did not have enough evidence to find the students guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the students are not guilty and continue as members of our community.
The single sanction did not affect the outcome of the trial. Never in the course of deliberations did a juror say they thought the students were guilty but their guilt did not warrant dismissal. No one who goes through the Honor process is found guilty of an offense he or she did not commit. No punishment, no matter how large or small, should come to a student who has not committed an offense. Even if we changed the sanction, we would still need to be absolutely positive that we were only punishing students who had committed an offense. I would not feel comfortable with a system that unjustly suspended students for something they did not do simply because we have a lesser sanction and a weaker process.
The single sanction works because students who are definitely guilty are dismissed. Students who are not proven guilty stay at our University. Schlingbaum and McClung made a mistake by not understanding the Honor policy, but the jury did not find that they committed an honor offense. Thus, these students are not guilty and remain in our community having learned a lesson about the importance of understanding and respecting the honor policy for each class.
David Hobbs is a Cavalier Daily Contributor and the Chair of the Honor Counsel.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe 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 | 5 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
