The Honor Committee tabled a controversial proposal last Sunday that would have eliminated random, all-student juries from trials. The Committee acted correctly by eliminating the proposal, which saw little support from the general student body, and which would have removed a critical form of student engagement from the trial process. Nevertheless, these efforts to address the perceived problem of apathetic jury members should not be shelved indefinitely. Instead, it should continue searching for ways to amend and strengthen the honor system - even if this suggestion fell through.
For instance, one way to do this is by looking for alternative ways to enhance engagement from randomly-selected jurors during the trial process. A few Committee members brought up suggestions to redress this problem during recent meetings. Suggestions include allowing trial chairs to probe jurors with more critical questions to aid in subsequent jury discussions and sparking conversations with student jurors prior to trials about terms such as "intent" and "triviality." Indeed, these suggestions must be refined but may form the foundation for a more thoughtful response to this problem.\nGraduate Arts & Sciences representative Alexander Cohen has taken a critical step toward this goal by presenting a list of reforms to the trial process at last night's Committee meeting. Although many representatives indicated that they would take issue with a number of his proposals, they should not dismiss these ideas given that there are only a few months left in their terms. It is important that they continue the conversations that arise from these proposals, as this seems to be the only way to enact needed reforms.
And even if the Committee eventually rejects these proposals, perhaps a benefit of such efforts is that they at least provoke meaningful conversation within the University community about the honor code. The Committee can benefit from such discussions because these talks enhance student involvement in the process. Students may not think it is important to have a thorough understanding of the honor code's subtleties, but it is important to show that students have a stake in how the system operates and that they, too, can shape its future. Only then will students feel compelled to educate themselves about such a key component of University life.
With the spring University-wide elections looming in just more than three months, the Committee - as well as other elected student organizations - must be progressive in its efforts to leave its mark on the University and consider meaningful reforms. Once the spring semester begins, the focus shifts from internal operations to campaigning for the next term. Rather than sweeping perceived problems under the rug, the Committee should take note of issues facing the honor system and look for ways to promote a dialogue between itself and the University community.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days 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 | 2 days 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 | 3 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.
