Charges were dropped yesterday against four members of the managing board who had been accused by Honor Committee Chair Ann Marie McKenzie of violating Standard of Conduct 11, which stipulates that students shall not engage in "intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct which obstructs the operations of the Honor or Judiciary Committee, or conduct that violates their rules of confidentiality." Although the board members whose names have been cleared - Matthew Cameron, Alyssa Juan, Andrew Seidman and Allie Vandivier - are pleased that the complainant has recognized that the charges brought against them were baseless, questions remain about whether the University Judiciary Committee overstepped it boundaries when it agreed to hear this case in the first place.
Past controversy involving the UJC, as well as the body's own constitution suggest that it acted erroneously in accepting the charges that were filed against members of the managing board. According to Article II, Section D, Clause 5 of the UJC constitution, the body "shall not have jurisdiction over the exercise of journalistic and editorial functions by student groups." Since The Cavalier Daily is an independent student-run publication and the managing board's alleged Standard 11 offense occurred within an unsigned editorial published in the paper, the UJC clearly did not possess the authority to hear the charges brought by the honor chair.
Members of the managing board raised these points in a written petition submitted to the UJC last week, but the body ruled that it had jurisdiction because "the fact that the alleged disclosures occurred in a newspaper does not necessarily absolve the individual students of their duties to uphold any binding Honor Committee policies." There are two ways to interpret this argument, but neither comes close to justifying the UJC's decision to proceed with the case.
The first possible explanation is that the UJC believed that the merits of the case needed to factor into its decision about whether it had jurisdiction. This line of thinking is on display in a portion of its response to the managing board, in which it said, "It is evident from the written arguments submitted by both sides that there are clear factual disputes that require further investigation." A correct understanding of jurisdiction, however, would render this justification irrelevant since according to its own constitution the UJC does not possess the authority with which to adjudicate such "factual disputes."
The second way the UJC's jurisdiction ruling can be construed is equally fallacious. It suggests that while the body recognizes it lacks jurisdiction with regard to "student groups," it believes the "individual students" who comprise said groups are still bound by its authority. This would eviscerate the entire meaning of Art. II, Sec. D, Cl. 5 since individual students are, by definition, the ones who carry out "journalistic and editorial functions" for student groups. If the writers, editors, broadcasters and illustrators who create content for media organizations like The Cavalier Daily were to remain bound to the UJC's authority, then the body would ipso facto exercise jurisdiction with regard to the "journalistic and editorial functions" of students.
This justification is unacceptable not only because it is incompatible with the text of Art. II, Sec. D, Cl.5, but also because it runs counter to the historical understanding of the provision. In fact, it appears that this very question about the individual-group distinction was answered during a dispute pertaining to the UJC's jurisdiction in 1985. At that time, the Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Reform chaired by Commerce Assoc. Prof. Neil Snyder recommended that the UJC be granted jurisdiction with respect to student-run media organizations.
A March 28, 1985 news article published in The Cavalier Daily included an explanation of Snyder's position, and it makes clear that his proposal was meant to address the fact that "journalistic and editorial functions" carried out by individual members of student-run media organizations were outside the purview of the UJC. "Snyder said he 'believes [having the media under jurisdiction] is pretty important. We are only saying if a student is irresponsible or malicious, he should not [be excluded from the jurisdiction] just because he works for a paper,'" the article reads. It went on to note that Snyder's proposal would make it so "charges could be brought up against the individual reporter, or in the case of a group editorial, against the entire organization."
Snyder's argument about the need to expand the UJC's jurisdiction is a red herring since "irresponsible or malicious" reporting likely would be deemed libel, for which Cavalier Daily staffers can be held accountable in U.S. civil or criminal courts. Perhaps in recognition of this fact or as an act of more general reverence to the freedom of the press, Snyder's proposal was not adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Reform. An April 16, 1985 news article in The Cavalier Daily reported, "The committee... recommended keeping current judiciary rules prohibiting jurisdiction over student media organizations. The proposal stated 'we believe formal recourse should deal with this issue and the procedures that should follow fall outside the bounds of this committee's charge.'"
Since this appears to have been the final word on UJC jurisdiction until the present case, it must be concluded that the UJC does not have the authority to hear cases against individuals who are alleged to have committed Standard of Conduct violations through their exercising "journalistic and editorial functions" of student groups. Therefore, the UJC should make a public acknowledgment of this fact so that members of the University community will not attempt to file charges against such individuals.
It is important that this point be clarified quickly and forthrightly since the paper's freedom to publish has already been obstructed as a result of the recent misinterpretation of Art. II, Sec. D, Cl. 5. Future managing boards should not have to endure the uncertainty and anxiety that has been present during the paper's publication since the Standard 11 charges were filed two weeks ago, and future staff members should be free to carry out their obligation to report the news fairly and comprehensively without fear of repercussions stemming from mistaken readings of the UJC constitution.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 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 | 5 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.
