JOE SCHLINGBAUM and Lindsay McClung, two College third years accused of illicit collaboration in a political theory class, had their day in court on Sunday. Their highly publicized open honor trial was a significant one, not only because of their eventual acquittal but rather because it was the first open honor trial in three years. The trial provided a timely view into the often-hidden world of the honor system, and demonstrated that the system has both things to be proud of and things it needs to work on.
The trial system certainly affords accused students every opportunity to defend themselves. Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs, who chaired the trial, said at the outset, "The purpose of this trial is to determine the truth." He also frequently reminded the jury of the principles of reasonable doubt, etc., involved. The trial itself was run in a professional way and there had obviously been a thorough and fair investigation of the events in question. And although no lawyers are allowed at honor trials, the accused students were represented by highly competent student counsels, as was the community. Schlingbaum and McClung were by no means hung out to dry.
That being said, the trial also served as a vivid reminder of the pitfalls of the current honor system. The trial only took one day, but this represented just the final phase of the proceedings. The charges against Schlingbaum and McClung were filed last spring, stringing out the process over many months. If every honor charge involves an equally cumbersome inquest and trial, it's easy to understand why professors and teaching assistants are reluctant to initiate cases when they discover honor offenses and instead choose to deal with the matter themselves.
The issue of punishment is the other weak point of the honor system and probably its Achilles' heel. The only punishment available for guilty offenders in the current honor system is, of course, expulsion, meted out by student juries. This double-edged sword makes it hard for anyone to be sanctioned under the current system; student juries have a hard time passing judgment on their peers, and the single sanction is a hard punishment for anyone to impose.
This problem needs to be addressed for the honor system to work properly. Faculty do their part by weighing the situation carefully before reporting cases -- Sara Henary, the TA in the course in question, and Politics Prof. Stephen White, who taught it, considered the case a good deal before deciding to bring the students up on honor charges. In other words, professors and TAs are usually reasonably certain of guilt going into the investigation. Faced with a system that most likely will not punish the students unless guilt is very blatant, however, they will be reluctant to let the system do its work.
The problem of punishment needs to be approached from both angles: student juries and the single sanction. The honor system is based on the concept of student self-governance, but it's asking a lot of students, especially first years, to sentence other students, and it only becomes harder the more hazy the offense is. Students still need to have the final say on what the system does, but why not have a faculty representative advise the jury? Faculty members, especially those who have been around a while, have a better idea of what sort of offense would "result in the dissolution of the community of trust." The faculty would probably place more confidence in the honor system if they were more involved, and allowing one professor to weigh in without voting isn't going to wrest Honor away from student control.
The single sanction needs to be addressed as well, and replaced by a range of punishments than can be tailored to fit the crime. Schlingbaum and McClung were found guilty on act and intent, meaning that four-fifths of the jury believed the two violated the honor code. If other, less harsh punishments had been available to the jury, one of those may have been applied. Instead, we're left with a situation where no one is absolutely satisfied with the outcome and the honor system simply looks worse.
The University's honor system is one of its proudest traditions, and it is even more important to this institution in light of the many ethical dilemmas students face today. If the general apathy of students on the subject can be reduced and real reforms enacted, the system can continue to be one that upholds the values of the University and sets it apart for years to come.
Matt Waring's column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mwaring@cavalierdaily.com.
Clarification: The originial column claimed that because the jury in the open honor trial believed the accused students violated the honor code for act and intent, the jury believed they knowingly violated the honor code. Because the definition of intent includes whether the accused students knew, or should have known, it is impossible to say whether the jury believed they knowingly violated the honor code
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
