Although the Honor Committee was quiet for much of the past year, there are several issues simmering just beneath the surface of public debate that students must consider when they go to the polls next week. Chief among these are a proposed change to the language in the Committee's constitution explaining the criteria for conviction, as well as the latent controversy surrounding the composition of jury panels. Students will have a direct say on the former question through a referendum that will appear on the ballot, but the Managing Board also has identified five candidates among the nine running to be College representatives on the Committee whose well-reasoned opinions on jury reform, administrative efficiency and single sanction make them worthy of students' votes.
First is Alex Eschenroeder, a third-year student who has emphasized community outreach throughout his campaign. Eschenroeder understands it is the Committee's responsibility to initiate conversations with the University community to educate it about the honor system. To this end, Eschenroeder said he wants the Committee to hold informal meetings with other organizations and to continue its mock trial program. He also expressed openness to reforming the Committee's policy of single sanction and wants to further discuss the idea of allowing students to submit an "informed retraction" wherein they would admit guilt after being charged with an honor offense and subsequently would receive a punishment other than expulsion.
Third year Brandon Kist stood out because of his support for the initiation of an online case processing system similar to the one adopted by the University Judiciary Committee. This is a simple suggestion that would have a meaningful impact by streamlining the honor process, and it indicates Kist has a clear vision for administrative improvements to the Committee. He also criticized the previous Committee's flirtation with the idea of eliminating the all-student jury, which he said amounted to "asking students to give away ownership [of the honor system]." He acknowledged, though, that student jurors need to be better-trained and endorsed the idea of educational symposiums to inform them of the intricacies of the honor system.
Third year Ellie Perkins expressed similar displeasure with the Committee's prior handling of jury reform. She argued that the issue needed to be brought up again, and that the Committee should be more receptive to community feedback. Her unhappiness with the Committee for having dropped the issue immediately after a public outcry is justified given that severe problems exist within the present jury system. Perkins also highlighted the informed retraction as a major part of her campaign, asserting that it would alter the incentive structure that currently discourages professors from reporting honor offenses and student juries from handing down convictions because of qualms with the system's one-size-fits-all punishment.
Another third-year student Liz Rosenberg is also deserving of a vote because she has stressed the need for the Committee to reconnect with the student body. Although she has not enunciated a personal position on jury reform or single sanction, the lack of student engagement with the honor system is a major factor behind the problems in both of these areas. One idea she floated to address this issue involved inviting alumni to share with students what the honor system has meant for them post-graduation.
Finally, third year Remy Wheat established herself as an outstanding choice by demonstrating an understanding of the challenges that face international students when adjusting to the honor system. She used the conflicting academic citation policies in the United States and China as one illustration of how misunderstandings can occur when students do not have adequate knowledge of the honor system's expectations. She also offered a critical perspective on single sanction, arguing in favor of a multi-sanction system, and mentioned the possibility of implementing an online case processing system during the next Committee's term.
All of the candidates endorsed above were generally supportive of the referendum on this year's ballot to change the wording of two of the Committee's criteria for conviction from "intent" and "triviality" to "knowledge" and "significance." It is debatable how much of an effect this will have on the functioning of the trial process, but it should begin to provide clarification to students who otherwise would be confused by the ambiguity of the previous language. The only real way for the Committee to improve its internal operations and its reputation with the University community, however, is to continue to clarify its by-laws, as well as to carry out substantive reform on matters such as jury panels and case processing. Eschenroeder, Kist, Perkins, Rosenberg and Wheat provide the best hope for achieving those goals, and they deserve the support of students in the College.
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 | 3 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 | 4 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.
