I am shocked and saddened by the opinions offered Monday by two readers who condemn Stephanie Garrison and her successful appeal of her honor conviction ("Honor's self-enforced silence" and "An appropriate sanction," Sept. 11). These responses reveal not only a fundamental misunderstanding of Garrison's conviction and the details of the trial but also an ignorance of the more important and certainly more troubling issues this trial revealed about the honor system here at the University.
It is beyond naive to defend UJC's refusal to educate an accused student sufficiently, to refuse relevant and meaningful testimony and to proceed without any degree of procedural transparency as their valiant defense of a student's right to confidentiality. To do so is reductive, is simple-minded and reveals a degree of ignorance that is apparently far more widespread at this institution than I ever would have thought.
Clearly everyone is entitled to his own opinion about Garrison's guilt or innocence, but it is ludicrous to imply that she has attempted to malign or manipulate the UJC in order to influence the verdict of her trial. As anyone who has really been following this case for the past year and a half can tell you, Stephanie comported herself with incredible dignity, grace and utter respect for the University and for those people that failed her so badly throughout this ordeal. It was only when it became clear that the community to which she had sincerely dedicated her life and energy for years had abandoned and railroaded her that she decided to offer statements of fact that can and have been verified by impartial parties.
Moreover, I cannot imagine how anyone who was not even present at the trial can assert that Stephanie should have had her diploma revoked. I challenge Austin McCullough and anyone who finds his argument to have any resonance to accept the following challenge seriously. Consider what you truly believe about honor, justice and this purported community of trust. Look at yourself in the mirror and see if you can honestly say that every decision you have made in your career at the University has been morally impeccable, was made under the best-informed circumstances and followed the exact stipulations of every University by-law to the letter. When the answer is no, by your own standards you are required to withdraw immediately, refuse any recognition for the work you have done here and publicly declare your guilt.
It is a sad day for this University when its students do not realize that a case like this provides us with an opportunity to examine the systems that can determine the course of our lives thoroughly, rather than a chance to be divisive, destructive and to perpetuate the negative, self-aggrandizing and callous mood that has pervaded this entire trial.
Rosalind Moore
GSAS
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 | 4 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 | 5 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.
