After a recent open honor trial, some members of the University community have questioned the fundamental fairness of Honor Committee’s trial procedures. Unfortunately, much of the criticism now leveled at honor procedures is based on incomplete knowledge of honor bylaws and procedures. While some in the University community may disagree with the verdict that a random student panel reached, none should question the fairness that honor’s procedures provide and the diligence with which Committee representatives and support officers work to ensure fairness. I hope to clarify some of the misinformation that has been circulating about the Committee’s trial procedures.
Many critics have claimed that the reporter’s involvement in the case and her status as a Committee member somehow tainted the outcome of the trial. This is not case for several reasons. Most obviously, she did not officially assume the role of Committee member and Vice Chair for Investigations until this past Sunday — an entire week after the open trial. Thus, her involvement in the case was limited solely to that of a reporter — she had absolutely no role in any procedural aspects, such as selecting the jury panel or the Committee members who served on the investigative panel.
This case has led some to question the ability of the Committee to impartially carry out its procedures when a Committee member serves as the reporter or is otherwise involved in a case. The Committee’s bylaws outline a clear procedure should such a situation arise. Specifically, in accordance with Section V of the Committee’s Code of Ethics, the Committee goes to great efforts to ensure that the Committee members and support officers assigned to a case do not have any competing interests in that case.
Others have also called into question the ability of the Committee to provide accused students a jury of their peers. In the event an accused student requests a random student panel, the Committee goes to great lengths to provide an unbiased and random panel. To achieve this goal, the Vice Chair for Trials selects jurors at random from the entire student population. The Vice Chair for Trials then further screens the jurors to prevent any conflicts of interest that could result in a biased panel. When a student requests a random student panel, it is the responsibility of the Committee to follow these procedures in order to satisfy that request; however, if an accused student is to receive a random panel, University students must play their part as well by responding to juror summons.
These are just a few of the precautions the Committee takes to ensure that each student accused of an honor offense receives a fair trial. However, the honor system ultimately belongs to the students and it is our responsibility to uphold it. Indeed, the system requires student ownership to effectively function and deliver the benefits that have been recently discussed in these pages. Student ownership means more than personally pledging not to lie, cheat, or steal — it means holding others accountable as well. This may mean reporting a fellow student when necessary. The decision to report a case is of course a very difficult one, but ultimately the reporter is not responsible for the verdict. An unbiased jury of one’s peers makes the final decision at trial, not the reporter.
The recent criticisms of the honor system have been based on largely inaccurate information regarding the Committee’s trial procedures. Although I hope students will continue to debate any and all aspects of the honor system, we need to make sure that this debate is constructive by focusing on facts and ensuring we treat fellow students with respect. To this end, I encourage any student with any concern to attend the community concerns portion of the weekly Committee meetings.
David Truetzel is the Honor Committee Chair and a third-year student in the Commerce School.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoLooking 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 | 5 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 | 6 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.
