At Sunday night's meeting, the Honor Committee discussed a proposed amendment to give students convicted of an honor offense the opportunity to appeal that decision to the student body at large. Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander R. Cohen created the proposal, saying that if a convicted student chose to forego his confidentiality, the facts of his case could be presented to the University community. Cohen suggested that a one-page report of the case could be released to students, and that the convicted individual would need to obtain a minimum of 500 student signatures to see his case overturned.
The rationale behind the proposal is to further involve the University community in the honor system and to ensure that the Committee is responsive to the student body's interpretation of honor. Darden Representative Leif Glynn echoed Cohen's sentiments and said the Committee should find a process to address the concern that "a 12-person randomly-chosen jury does not reflect the community as a whole."
Although the proposal's intended purpose is commendable, such an amendment would be intrinsically flawed. Cohen and Glynn are right to point out the value in adding community input and engaging the student body in the honor system; however, collecting 500 signatures is simply not an appropriate means for overturning a conviction. The process would be too susceptible to student impulse and clever campaigning. It is not closely enough intertwined with the ideal of preserving justice.
Several Committee members questioned the wisdom of Cohen's proposal. Law School Representative Charlie Harris said a community appeals process would unduly benefit affluent students who could more easily canvass to collect the needed signatures. He also expressed concern that the system could lead to "knee-jerk" community verdicts instead of the sound deliberation that trials generally produce. Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll agreed and argued that appealing to the student body could lead to significant bias.
These concerns touch on the multiple reasons that such a proposal is defective. Even if students are provided with a one-page case summary - or a lengthier document, for that matter - to review, a body entirely removed from case proceedings cannot be expected to consistently deliver a sound appellate decision. Though several students in the past have called attention to alleged problems within the Committee's current appeals process, Cohen's proposal is clearly not the solution to those flaws, as it creates a questionable means to establish the Committee's criteria for a successful appeal. It also introduces a multitude of logistical difficulties, perhaps further engendering the system's reputation as complicated and difficult to understand.
Other influences on the student community would be tough to mitigate as well. Presented with a high-pressure situation, students approached to sign a petition might buckle to a convicted student's pleas and agree to sign. Carroll also rightly pointed out the effect that the system's sole punishment is likely to have on some students: A potentially large number of signees might wish to overturn an honor conviction simply out of protest against the single sanction. Though student opinion about that policy may vary, the Committee is right to only grant appeals in instances of new evidence or procedural errors. Furthermore, the securing of 500 signatures only demonstrates that about 2 or 3 percent of the total student population wants to overrule a verdict; an enterprising student could surely convince that small a number to join his cause, regardless of the circumstances at hand.
Cohen's creativity and boldness are admirable, but this solution is simply not plausible. The University community should be engaged in the honor system to whatever extent possible, but it cannot fundamentally replace the Committee's formal processes. Instead, the Committee should explore other nontraditional methods to increase community involvement and should also consider undertaking a formal review of its current appeals process. The Committee should unquestionably be held to strict scrutiny from the student body in the application of honor principles, but appealing specific cases to public decision would be a gross affront to due process and justice.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 7 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | YesterdayUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
