"IF I HAD to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." This statement by Thomas Jefferson at first seems characteristically radical. But it sounds altogether sensible when the people who lead governing bodies apparently cannot read plain language.
This is the situation in which the University community now finds itself. The University Judiciary Committee does not seem to like the fact that a previous generation of students put into its constitution a clause that prohibits it from bullying the free press at the University, including The Cavalier Daily. But this happened. The UJC constitution plainly lists among its "jurisdiction restrictions" "the exercise of journalistic and editorial functions by student groups." Yet a case against The Cavalier Daily's editors for something they did as journalists can go through? This is brazen sophistry.
The UJC and Honor Committee are embarrassing themselves and damaging the cause of a free press at the University with this kind of anti-reasoning. They should realize quickly that they have strayed well beyond their powers in this case.
The many layers of absurdity in this case begin with the fact that Cavalier Daily editors clearly did not even do that of which they are accused - breaching the confidentiality of an Honor proceeding. They exercised their freedom of the press responsibly. The editors discovered plagiarism in their newspaper. They were good journalists in admitting the problem to readers. They did not name the alleged plagiarist or even the section where the plagiarism occurred. They reported the case to the Honor Committee and said so to their readers.
Good journalistic practice is allegedly what a breach of confidentiality looks like. Furthermore, "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," the UJC told the editors. But to believe this requires ignoring the fact that the UJC's own constitution plainly means that even if this were the case, the UJC could not do anything about it.
The notion that the UJC may not have the ability to punish student-journalist "groups," but can haul the students who constitute those groups before UJC tribunals, is an equally vacuous attempt effectively to erase any limits to the UJC's jurisdiction. The UJC has an easier time admitting it has no jurisdiction over the Honor Committee. Yet we assume that it now believes it can isolate specific Honor Committee members for what they do on Honor and put them to a UJC trial?
This makes no sense.
The UJC also seems to believe it has the ability to prevent the accused students - the editors, in this case - from even talking about the charges. That position has no basis in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the federal law that governs the secrecy of UJC and Honor proceedings. These University bodies' secrecy provisions exist to serve that law. The law makes clear that the privacy of these deliberations exists to protect the privacy of students, not disciplinary bodies. Accused students are not prohibited by FERPA from talking about their cases publicly. As student journalists, we published many interviews with students accused by Honor or UJC and who decided to speak about it. Not once did the University try to punish them.
The exemption from UJC jurisdiction that the press at the University enjoys is proper and necessary for the health of the community. The last thing the University community needs is the policing of a free press by student government bodies that ignore the clear limits imposed on them. And it is clear through The Cavalier Daily's judicious actions in this case that newspapers are much better at determining how to use this freedom responsibly than are administrative bodies.
Newspapers are in the business of calling power to account. The Honor Committee and the UJC are organs of the administration, and it is clear that if they are given power over the free press at the University, it will be abused. Their power is being abused even in this case, where it does not rightfully exist. If this is tolerated, ultimately it will be the students, faculty, staff and alumni of the University who will lose. When the UJC can be employed as a low-visibility way to punish student journalists and prevent them from even talking about it, the free discourse that Jefferson founded the University to promote will suffer.
The only body that should be more embarrassed than the UJC is the Honor Committee. As Politics Prof. Michael Smith noted in his letter to the editor, Honor has chosen bizarrely to punish the newspaper's editors for their good-faith actions. This is sad for the cause of honesty at the University. And it sadly vindicates the position held by some previous Cavalier Daily editors that episodes of plagiarism should not be reported to honor, so as not to invite that mostly secret and unaccountable group to police a free press.
The provisions in University rules that ensure a free press on Grounds are mere echoes of our nation's dedication to the same principle. It is sad for student self-governance that the administration may need to get involved to prevent this from becoming an even more absurd debacle. But student self-governance assumes that students can understand basic principles of a free society. And plain language.
Pat Harvey, Mike Slaven and Herb Ladley were, respectively, the 116th, 117th and 118th editors-in-chief of The Cavalier Daily.
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.
