THE HONOR Committee's decision to bring charges against the managing board of The Cavalier Daily stands as a great injustice. Wait, do we really need a twelfth article about this conflict?
Since Sept. 22, when headlines revealed the University Judiciary Committee charges against the paper, eleven pieces of content have focused on the disagreement. This includes two news articles - one to tell of the initial actions of the Honor Committee and the UJC and one to report that charges against four of the five members of the managing board had been dropped. In addition to these are four editorials by the managing board, three other opinion pieces and two letters to the editor. This is a lot of attention for a topic that is, shall I say, a bit unworthy.
Few students and community members would argue that the board members should suffer punishment for the publication of the Sept. 12 editorial "Taking action," in which they explained to readers the dismissal of a writer accused of plagiarism. I myself am among the many who strongly support the fundamentals of civil rights, and thus, The Cavalier Daily's leaders in their action. Freedom of speech and press always must be regarded with utmost value. But that is now beside the point.
Despite demonstrating appropriateness in fighting to clear their names of UJC charges, the managing board has exhibited inappropriate methods of handling the situation in the paper. The level of exposure the situation has received only serves to harm the managing board, the Honor Committee, the UJC and the community at large.
If the managing board desires to maintain its image as a student group dedicated to enlightening the community with the best product possible, it ought to stop with this nonsense now. Referring to the UJC as a "kangaroo court," something done by Managing Editor Andrew Seidman, comes across as a desperate attempt to downplay the legitimacy of a respectable opponent. Printing editorials such as "This is what censorship looks like" (Sept. 26), in which the board simply left two blank columns under the aforementioned headline, makes it seem as if the five leaders of the paper are only capable of hyperbolic argumentation rather than constructive debate.
More important than those missteps is the mere number of editorials produced about this topic. The continuous stream gives the impression the board is more concerned with saving face than providing new insight on a broad range of topics to its readers. Certainly, The Cavalier Daily's leadership possesses much more ability than shown by its insistence to publish these editorials.
Let us not forget about the effects of this content upon the Honor Committee and the UJC. Everyone knows they made a mistake. By continuing to pump out pieces condemning their actions, however, we point out more than a simple mistake.
With each letter to the editor and guest viewpoint that attempts to analyze the logical flaw in the Honor Committee's and the UJC's actions, the perception of the governing student bodies as legitimate enterprises is weakened. How are students to acknowledge the genuine assistance these organizations provide if they hear nothing but the wrongdoings committed by each? We need student faith in these groups to be maintained as much as possible for them to work as the foundations of student self-governance.
Also lost in the debacle is the paper's readership. I, along with many members of the Charlottesville community, read the opinion section in order to gain new perspectives on a wide range of issues. But for the last two weeks, I feel too much of the opinion section has been taken from me, replaced by constant "Honor Committee files charges against managing board" features.
Considering these harmful consequences, what drives the managing board to continue publication of editorials on the seemingly resolved issue?
When I asked Editor-in-Chief Jason Ally to explain why he felt a need to maintain the publicity of the issue, the answer was twofold. He first explained the paper has an obligation to report the news and then added that he believes the situation can be resolved most efficiently if the Honor Committee is able to recognize the board's point of view. There can be no denying The Cavalier Daily's duty to report the news, thus I make no argument against the two articles on the topic that appeared within the news pages. The suggestion that the Honor Committee simply needs to understand the opposing point of view, however, is not a justified reason for the other content.
What part of the situation necessitates the continuation of editorials on the matter? Certainly, the public has made its decision on the matter; not a single guest article in the paper has been in support of the Honor Committee or the UJC. And if the paper's sole purpose in writing these editorials is to convince its opposition, why can this exchange not happen away from the eyes of the public? The constant degradation of the actions taken by the governing bodies no longer serves the purpose of persuading readers. Additionally, the articles are not a warranted method of conversing with the Honor Committee and the UJC because they now only reinforce previously discussed harms which affect all parties involved.
I realize it may seem hypocritical of me to urge other writers to drop this issue, while I publish yet another column on the topic. Let me just say, I did so with the hope this one article would prevent the future existence of many more.
Cameron Seib is a Viewpoint writer for 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.
