GO FIGURE. The Honor Committee passes one of the most important reforms of its investigation processes in -- well, a long time -- and we do it after the Cavalier Daily has gone on vacation.
Maybe if the "Transformation Proposal" had been called Tremendous Reform of Monumental Proportions, we could have better publicized the debate last semester.
Blame the Vice Chair for Community Relations for that mix up. Yet the press coverage gaffe belies the fact that the reform represents real change.
In the past, investigations often dragged for weeks or months. Inefficiencies, communication gaps and the resulting delays placed undue burden on the reporting witness and the investigated student. Evidence got lost. Memories faded. Parties involved panicked about the investigation status and, more generally, about their academic future.
At the conclusion of investigations, the Committee would hold "investigation panels," at which the reporter and investigated student would present their sides of the case before three Committee members. Based on a criterion of "more likely than not," the Committee members would vote to send the case to trial, dismiss it, or send it back for more investigation.
Scheduling I-panels further extended the length of cases, as they required the presence of Committee, investigative counsel, the reporter and his or her advisor, and the investigated student and his or her advisor.
Adding to the troubles created by this process, I-panels developed into mini-trials. Investigated students and reporters saw them as an opportunity to attack one another's arguments
The reform passed by the Honor Committee eliminates these problems, restoring I-panel to its intended purpose, while reducing confrontations between reporter and investigated Students.
Whoop Dee Do?
Unless one comes into direct contact with an investigation as an investigated student or witness, this reform will remain under the radar.
But I think I speak on behalf of the entire Committee when I say that this reform reflects a shift in the orientation of Honor toward progressivism. The underlying justifications and logic for this reform represent a willingness to respond to problems with creative solutions.
So what did we do? We tightened limits on the length of investigations. Although deadlines existed, the Committee has shifted responsibility to investigations coordinators to ensure that investigators meet these deadlines so that investigated students are no longer hung out to dry for weeks.
At the outset of an investigation, reporters will be assigned an advisor. Rather, an advisor will serve as a resource to which any community witness will have access. This reduces the role of the reporting witness from a party in the case to an ordinary witness. It decreases the time commitment demanded of the reporter and properly allocates the pressure to the Committee.
A reporter reports something that he or she saw. A reporter does not condemn, accuse, or expel. The task of investigation and accusation falls to the Committee; not to one person.
Under the old process, investigated students would see the written testimony of the reporter just before I-Panel. This was a great source of anxiety in the hearing. Students felt pressured to immediately disprove new arguments and evidence.
Now, the investigated student will have access to written testimony of the reporter at their original interview. When the Honor Committee investigates a case, investigators collect evidence from the reporter and any additional witnesses that he or she requests. They then question the student.
Under the new process, investigators present the student with the written testimony of the reporter and other community witnesses at their first interview. The student will give testimony, and will then have the opportunity to write a response to the community's testimony. They will have as much time as necessary and can formulate their testimony in a relatively stress-free environment.
Neither the reporter nor the investigated student will enter into a confrontational setting.
Most importantly, the Committee eliminated I-panel as it previously existed. Rather than holding a hearing with at least nine people present, the Investigators will present three Committee members with their written findings at the end of the sixteen-day investigation. Committee members will still decide based on the same criterion whether or not to send the case to trial. As a result, the panel will take on a role analogous to grand juries in the judicial system: instead of a "dress rehearsal trial," the panel will decide if the Committee should continue to pursue a case.
This process gives students more time to respond to the evidence against them and eliminates the necessity of attending a stressful and often frustrating hearing. It also relieves the stress on reporters and rightfully places the burden of adjudication on the Committee.
Whether the Committee will see more reported cases because of this reform remains unknown. Most importantly for me -- and here I don't know for sure if I am speaking for the Committee as a whole -- this reform increases fairness for the investigated student. It responds to the concerns expressed in the faculty survey and reduces inefficiencies that have dogged Investigations for the three years that I have been involved with Honor.
No fireworks. No confetti. But certainly a fairer system.
A-J Aronstein is the Honor Committee vice chair for services. He is a fourth year in the College.
Read More
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | YesterdayEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
SULLIVAN: On making Housing a home — for student self-governance
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe most obvious and necessary remedy for HRL going forward is coincidentally one of the greatest tools on any Resident Staff across Grounds — communication.
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | December 27, 2024Standardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
