Every University student accused of an honor violation has the right to a jury of students, according to Article V, Section I of the Honor Committee constitution. Current procedures for the Semester at Sea program, however, do not afford students that right. Apparently, the Honor Committee thinks its constitution only applies on dry land.
Before this week’s changes to Semester at Sea’s Voyager’s Handbook, faculty made up the juries of all honor trials aboard the MV Explorer. Under the new procedures, students determine whether a case goes to trial and serve as jurors, unless the registrar — who conducts the initial investigation — decides faculty should fill these roles.
This last clause renders the changes ineffective. It is still possible for University credit to be denied to students who have not been convicted by a student jury. This policy is incompatible with the concept of honor at the University.
Honor Committee Chair Jessica Huang said the trial procedures never violated the constitution, because the Committee’s bylaws state Semester at Sea will be governed by the Voyager’s Handbook, and students on the ship agree to waive their right to a student jury.
The problem with this argument is the constitution also states “The Honor Committee shall bring its existing literature, rules, and by-laws into conformity with this constitution.” The Voyager’s Handbook and the bylaw that grants it authority both violate this clause. Saying the committee is not acting unconstitutionally because the bylaws spell out the procedure is like saying, “Yes, we’re violating our constitution, but we know we are, so it’s alright.”
Since everyone on the voyage takes the required “Global Studies” course, an alleged violation in that course seems like the most likely instance in which the registrar would determine a student jury to be inappropriate. Rather than being tried by faculty, however, those cases should be tried by students in Charlottesville, after the voyage.
Huang said the Committee could not hold fair trials this way. Too much time would have passed, and University students who had not been on the ship would not understand the context of the case.
Of course, that’s exactly how the Committee handles honor cases from other University study abroad programs. If timeliness is not an issue with those cases, it will not be with Semester at Sea cases, either. Witnesses can be contacted by phone, as they were during this summer’s open honor trial. The Honor Committee already knows how to overcome these logistical challenges. Moreover, the context of a Semester at Sea course is simple: It is a University course with University students. It may take place in a different part of the world, but there should be no difference in the honor code’s application.
Even if Huang is right and the trial is somewhat less than perfect, a jury of one’s peers is still too important a guarantee of fairness to deny it to any student.
By holding trials with faculty jurors, the Honor Committee is not only violating its own constitution. It is also betraying the trust students place in the Committee to protect their rights. All students have a right to a student jury. The Honor Committee must be uncompromising on this point.
The two students expelled from Semester at Sea this summer may well be guilty of honor violations. To find out, they should be given the honor trial they never had. The trial that found them guilty must have been something else; honor trials at the University are not run by faculty.