AS THE Honor Committee made motion after motion to extend debate on the topic of referendum validity at Sunday’s Committee meeting, it was clear that the decision of whether or not the proposed referendum to the Honor Committee’s constitution should establish a binding amendment was far from cut and dry. After the meeting and much deliberation, I made the decision to honor the proposed referendum in consideration of our discussion and on behalf of the student body.
There were many questions to consider and valid points for both interpretations. Many Committee members spoke on behalf of the student body, each asserting various points for consideration. In addition, comments from two students during the community concerns portion of our meeting emphasized the importance of this decision to the greater student body.
Ultimately, I made the decision to honor the referendum not in consideration of my personal thoughts of how well I could interpret the constitution correctly from my viewpoint, but whether or not I could interpret the constitution objectively on behalf of the student body. Because the option to propose an amendment to the constitution is given to the student body, it is important to consider the ability of the students to interpret the constitution when submitting a proposal. I made the decision to accept validity of the proposal because I believe that the Committee’s discussion on Sunday demonstrated that there is no agreed upon objective viewpoint for the student body.
The difference between the University Board of Elections submission date and the provisions in the constitution led to this confusion, and consequently necessitated that the Committee clarify the validity of the referendum before the upcoming elections. Our discussion was not about the content of the amendment or the personal opinions of Committee members, but rather the submission of referenda in general. We discussed whether or not students would have time to fully consider the proposal, and whether or not students would have a fair chance to participate in the governance of the honor system.
Despite the controversy that developed during the discussion, what remained clear throughout the debate was that there exists a general confusion surrounding the wording of the constitution. Each Committee member agreed that there is a need for clarification of constraints on amendments to the constitution in the future. While certain individuals believed that there is a clear and objective reading of the language, there was no question that not everyone could find and agree on a clear and objective reading. The uncertainty surrounding the UBE requirements, the decisions made by past Committees, and the very existence of our discussion were a testament to this lack of clarity.
My decision on the validity of this amendment was based not on whether the constitution was unclear to me, but whether or not it was clear to the greater student body invested in this system and the students who have a right to propose amendments to the constitution. I did not base my decision of how to interpret the constitution on decisions made by past Committees, but rather with the acknowledgement that this past precedent was the basis for the timeline used by students seeking to submit their proposal.
The heart of our system rests in the fact that it is derived from the student body, and this requires that students be given the opportunity to amend the constitution if they believe it is necessary. The proposal that will be on the ballot is one that has been discussed by students since last semester, and the student body has demonstrated a desire to see it on the ballot through submission of student signatures to UBE.
I believe that the strength of our University is student self-governance and a faith in the student body’s investment in our community. It is my hope that the extensive discussion at our Committee meeting conveys to the student body how important each and every student’s involvement is — from the students who labored over the creation of the proposal, to the three thousand students who signed the petition, to each and every student who participates in the spring elections. The honor system exists for the students, and it is imperative that as individual students we recognize the importance of our contribution to the system.
Given that there will not be a full two weeks before the start of the voting period, the Committee will work to give students every opportunity to properly inform themselves about the referendum before elections. We will host a forum for questions and discussion at 9 p.m. this Thursday in the Newcomb Kaleidoscope Room, and as always, we will hold our weekly open Committee meeting at 8 p.m. on Sunday in the Newcomb Trial Room. I hope that all students will participate in dialogue over these next couple of weeks, and I encourage students to contact Committee representatives from their respective schools with any questions about the referendum. As always, I am more than happy to address any questions and concerns.
Jess Huang is the Honor Committee Chair. She can be reached at honor-chair@virginia.edu.
Read More
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 2 days agoEvery 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 | 5 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.
