When the Honor Committee's new members assumed office yesterday, they took on the responsibility of administering judicial proceedings pertaining to acts of lying, cheating or stealing that violate the ideal of a "Community of Trust." Although this description makes the Committee's power and jurisdiction seem fairly straightforward, the process of meting out justice and interpreting the meaning of honor is quite nuanced.
Thus, the Committee must seek to re-engage students who have fallen out of touch with the complexities of honor. It can do so by keeping them informed and by actively soliciting their input on the major issues that the Committee addresses during its term.
Committee Chair Ann Marie McKenzie recognized the need for interaction with the broader University community and said one of her goals is to show "how relevant the Committee is to the average student." A good way to start would be to further educate students about the recently passed referendums that changed two of the criteria for honor convictions from "intent" and "triviality" to "knowledge" and "significance," respectively. Although the changes will not impact the standard of justice that is applied in honor trials, it is nevertheless important for students to understand the meaning of these two terms.
It may be tempting for the Committee to assume the student body gave an informed assent to the altered language when it passed the referendums. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that only 32 percent of students voted in this year's spring elections. Even if all of those students fully grasp the definitions of "knowledge" and "significance" present in the Committee's by-laws - which is highly unlikely - a full two-thirds of the student body remains disconnected from the changes that were made. The Committee must find a way to assure that these students, as well as those who voted on the referendums, recognize that culpability for an honor offense is not based upon one having malicious objectives when committing an action. Rather, it rests upon whether "a reasonable University of Virginia student should have known [the action] might be considered an Honor Offense," according to the Committee's by-laws.
McKenzie indicated the Committee already is working to expand outreach to specific student groups under the guidance of Carter Haughton, the new vice chair for education. Haughton led a similar initiative last year that focused on athletes and is "someone who knows the nitty-gritty" of the honor system, McKenzie said. She added that the Committee hopes to continue its program of mock trials that it began last semester, although in the future it will spread out the trials rather than holding them within the span of a week.
Another item the Committee inherits from its predecessors and that will need to be explained to the student body is informed retraction. This is a proposal that would allow a student to remain at the University, albeit with some sort of punishment, if he admits guilt to an alleged honor offense before a certain stage in the investigative process. It would build upon the currently existing option of a conscientious retraction, under which a student may remain at the University if he admits guilt before any other individual has knowledge of his honor offense. If the Committee determines that informed retraction is worth pursuing, it must work out the specifics of the reform and communicate them to students.
Finally, the Committee should initiate a conversation with the governing councils of various schools such as the College so that the process by which vacant seats on the Committee are filled is more consistent and clear. Although McKenzie was correct to point out that it is not the role of the Committee to unilaterally force revisions to these bodies' procedures, it is in the best interests of honor and the University student body for vacancies to be filled according to standards that are laid out in unambiguous terms in each governing council's constitution.
As the Committee begins its term, it should consider the solemn tradition it is asked to uphold. It also must look ahead, however, at ways that it can implement changes with the approval and comprehension of as many students as possible.
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.
