In reading yesterday's lead editorial ("Borrowing Ideas," Nov. 10), I found myself surprised that the assertions of the singular voice of Professor Alan Briceland of Virginia Commonwealth University have carried so much weight. Briceland at the core claims that the University's honor system fails to account appropriately for student intent in plagiarism cases and that his colleagues in academia fail to understand the issue at the heart of their profession: the honest exchange of ideas, the currency of academics. Both of these claims are false and students should put little faith in the statements of a man admittedly chosen as a voice by those dismissed students most interested in driving the perception of injustice in the current system.
The editorial claims without support that the current system "makes proving intent during an honor trial startlingly easy." I doubt that those who penned this claim have ever sat through the deliberations of a jury; I have sat through several in my former capacity as Vice Chair for Trials. As a reminder, in order to convict, four-fifths of a jury must believe that a student knew or should have known that he or she committed an act in violation of the honor code, and they must believe this beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries typically hear hours of testimony, much of which is focused on that specific question; they typically spend hours discussing and reviewing that amongst themselves. Jurors take these obligations immensely seriously and consequently these deliberations are somber affairs, with conviction being anything but easy. Remember, all we ask is that students do not steal other's words or thoughts without attribution. Any student should know that such theft is wrong, and minor mistakes involving single sentences or faulty, but existent citation rarely are reported, and, if they are, still must prove non-trivial.
Before anointing Briceland's words as revelatory, we must consider the context. First, his claim that professors do not understand distinctions that are at the heart of an honor trial is belied by the fact that the heart of a professor's training is the creation of original research with proper attribution. Because these professors trade in the currency of ideas, they certainly can grasp Briceland's distinctions, and, more importantly, no student faces conviction unless a panel of his peers believes beyond a reasonable doubt he committed a non-trivial act intentionally. Second, we should consider that the Honor Committee has recently taken admirable steps to clarify its documents. Putting limitations on the rights of juries to evaluate cases at the behest of those with the biggest axe to grind and those likely telling only one side of the story is on its face ridiculous. The Honor Committee should continue its educational efforts, but certainly should not dilute the honor system and the value of a University degree because of criticism that has no merits.
Brian O'Neill\nCLAS '08\nFormer Vice Chair for Trials, Honor Committee
Read More
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.
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | December 23, 2024Addiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
