Last week, the Honor Committee reached the two-thirds majority needed to put a constitutional amendment to referendum that would disclose more information about the results and discussion of honor cases. Students will vote on the referendum during the upcoming University-wide elections and should embrace this opportunity to make honor proceedings more transparent. Committee, however, should be cognizant of the threat this poses to the confidentiality that honor cases often demand.
These case summaries would supplement and expound upon the information that the Committee currently releases - solely the outcome of the trials. If passed, this referendum would provide a brief synopsis of the case at hand; the Committee would divulge more background information about each case, including logistical data about the alleged offense and the arguments presented during the trial. The Committee has, at times, been criticized for a lack of transparency about how it adjudicates cases. This amendment could help shed light on honor procedures for students. "Honor should not be a mystery," said Alexander Cohen Graduate Arts & Sciences representative, "Honor should be a standard that we all understand and that we all have an ability to contribute to setting." Though students should be familiar with the honor code, not all students understand the Committee's inner workings and how it reaches decisions.
Intent, one of the three criteria used to determine guilt, is defined in the Committee's bylaws as, "The actor knew, or should have known, that the act in question was or could have been considered lying, cheating, or stealing." When students sign the honor pledge during their commencement ceremony here at the University, they officially enter the community of trust and are expected to know what constitutes a violation of the honor code. Confusion arises, however, when applying these standards to non-deliberate acts of plagiarism, including making incorrect citations or improper paraphrasing. These public summaries could serve as an additional resource for the Committee to offer students specific examples of what constitutes an honor violation.
Improving education and transparency are often two of the Committee's goals from term to term. Though these efforts are laudable, the Committee must take into account the threat posed to confidentiality by releasing case summaries. Recognizing this concern, Committee Chair David Truetzel confirmed that there would be "safety nets" to ensure students' privacy in that their identities would not be compromised. Furthermore, the Committee chair would reserve the right to bar publishing any additional facts about the case.
Questions should be raised, however, as to what standard the chair would use when deciding whether to publish this information. He must avoid possibly of a student's identity becoming discernible. To be brought before the Committee on honor charges is an emotionally taxing experience; to have one's anonymity compromised because of the process would be an unnecessary punishment.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 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 | 23 hours agoUniversity 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.
