At Sunday night’s meeting, the Honor Committee discussed a proposed amendment to give students convicted of an honor offense the opportunity to appeal that decision to the student body at large. Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander R. Cohen created the proposal, saying that if a convicted student chose to forego his confidentiality, the facts of his case could be presented to the University community. Cohen suggested that a one-page report of the case could be released to students, and that the convicted individual would need to obtain a minimum of 500 student signatures to see his case overturned.
The rationale behind the proposal is to further involve the University community in the honor system and to ensure that the Committee is responsive to the student body’s interpretation of honor. Darden Representative Leif Glynn echoed Cohen’s sentiments and said the Committee should find a process to address the concern that “a 12-person randomly-chosen jury does not reflect the community as a whole.”
Although the proposal’s intended purpose is commendable, such an amendment would be intrinsically flawed. Cohen and Glynn are right to point out the value in adding community input and engaging the student body in the honor system; however, collecting 500 signatures is simply not an appropriate means for overturning a conviction. The process would be too susceptible to student impulse and clever campaigning. It is not closely enough intertwined with the ideal of preserving justice.
Several Committee members questioned the wisdom of Cohen’s proposal. Law School Representative Charlie Harris said a community appeals process would unduly benefit affluent students who could more easily canvass to collect the needed signatures. He also expressed concern that the system could lead to “knee-jerk” community verdicts instead of the sound deliberation that trials generally produce. Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll agreed and argued that appealing to the student body could lead to significant bias.
These concerns touch on the multiple reasons that such a proposal is defective. Even if students are provided with a one-page case summary — or a lengthier document, for that matter — to review, a body entirely removed from case proceedings cannot be expected to consistently deliver a sound appellate decision. Though several students in the past have called attention to alleged problems within the Committee’s current appeals process, Cohen’s proposal is clearly not the solution to those flaws, as it creates a questionable means to establish the Committee’s criteria for a successful appeal. It also introduces a multitude of logistical difficulties, perhaps further engendering the system’s reputation as complicated and difficult to understand.
Other influences on the student community would be tough to mitigate as well. Presented with a high-pressure situation, students approached to sign a petition might buckle to a convicted student’s pleas and agree to sign. Carroll also rightly pointed out the effect that the system’s sole punishment is likely to have on some students: A potentially large number of signees might wish to overturn an honor conviction simply out of protest against the single sanction. Though student opinion about that policy may vary, the Committee is right to only grant appeals in instances of new evidence or procedural errors. Furthermore, the securing of 500 signatures only demonstrates that about 2 or 3 percent of the total student population wants to overrule a verdict; an enterprising student could surely convince that small a number to join his cause, regardless of the circumstances at hand.
Cohen’s creativity and boldness are admirable, but this solution is simply not plausible. The University community should be engaged in the honor system to whatever extent possible, but it cannot fundamentally replace the Committee’s formal processes. Instead, the Committee should explore other nontraditional methods to increase community involvement and should also consider undertaking a formal review of its current appeals process. The Committee should unquestionably be held to strict scrutiny from the student body in the application of honor principles, but appealing specific cases to public decision would be a gross affront to due process and justice.
I welcome this and further comments on my proposal. It is very much a work in progress, and I look forward to taking advantage of whatever feedback I can get.
But I believe this proposal serves the cause of justice. One element of a just judicial process is consistency. Secrecy makes that impossible to attain, because the people deciding one case do not know how similar cases, even the same week, were decided. I don’t want to move to a system of permanent, binding precedent, but public discussion can provide a measure of consistency without forcing later student generations to abide by the decisions of their predecessors.
A more fundamental element of justice is an objectively sound standard. Such a standard is difficult, if not impossible, to craft without knowledge of cases — and it is impossible for anyone who does not know how the standard is being applied in cases to determine whether it is just and is being justly applied.
Moreover, Honor is not committed purely to objectively just rules, but to the standards of the community. Yet secrecy prevents the community from forming a standard or determining whether the Committee is in tune with such views as the community does have.
There are actually eleven different problems with secrecy:
1. It makes it difficult to know what will be considered an Honor violation; thus a student may be surprised to be charged or convicted.
2. For the same reason, it’s difficult to know what to report as an Honor violation.
3. Because neither jurors nor even Honor Committee members know the facts of most cases in which they’re not involved, different standards may be applied in different cases, just because different people are randomly chosen.
4. The voters are unable to determine whether they agree with the members of the Committee as to whether certain acts constitute Honor offenses, because they do not know what the Committee members think.
5. The voters are unable to determine how well the Committee’s process is contributing to the community of trust.
6. Reporting witnesses whose cases do not proceed to trial have good reason to think and feel that their honor and (in the case of professors and TAs reporting academic cases) their professional judgment have been impugned.
7. Students joining the community of trust do not have a clear idea what they are getting into.
8. The system misses valuable a valuable teaching opportunity with every case that is not publicly discussed.
9. Because students are unable to examine the values promoted by the system, they risk being “taught lessons” based on values they do not share.
10. Because the Committee demands that all persons except the accused keep the proceedings secret, secrecy violates the right of witnesses to free speech — including, importantly, to speech critical of the Committee. The Committee thus insulates itself from criticism in a way even the U.S. Supreme Court cannot.
11. Because the secrecy of the Committee is so different from the way American legislatures and courts work outside the University context, it interferes with the lessons in citizenship student self-governance is supposed to teach.
If you want more details, I can send you an 87-page article I’ve recently written on “FERPA and Constitutional Values in Student Discipline,” which I hope to have published in a legal journal next year. I welcome feedback on that too. E-mail me at arc3w.
The present proposal does not address all of the problems with secrecy, but it does address the majority of them, at least to some degree. If anyone has a better way to reduce secrecy, PLEASE let me know! I am firmly committed to the goal of greater openness — that’s why I ran for Committee — but I would gladly substitute a better means of achieving that goal. Secrecy undermines both trust and justice. The present proposal would reduce secrecy, create a new way of ensuring that students are not unjustly dismissed from the University, and make the Committee’s process more just and more understandable even in cases where the appeal to the community was not invoked.
Finally, to address a few of the simpler concerns:
1. The proposal does not violate due process, for the simple reason that it can only change the outcome in favor the defendant.
2. One option already included in the proposal is to go to an election when such a petition is submitted.
Note to editors: I am not submitting this for print publication, but only for this online comment page. I intend to submit something better written for print; this is what I could write in the wee hours of the morning immediately upon reading your editorial. Thank you.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
This is an interesting idea, and actually something not far off from how the Honor System originally worked. In the early days of the Honor System, Honor Trials themselves were conducted by the student body as a whole. Of course, the student body was MUCH smaller, and MUCH more centrally located than it is today.
That being said, the points made by the Editorial Staff here are right. This is a nice idea in principle, but I am very unconvinced that it’s actually workable.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
This is a first, but I’m going to strongly agree with the editorial board on this one- way to go guys! Alexander, you seem to have a vendetta against the honor system (I think your rant above proves that point). Before you add such a drastic change you should look at, what are the concerns. You seems to be afraid that honor cases are resulting in different verdicts. Ask the honor committee if two students have been tried in the same trial and one has been found guilty and one has been found not guilty. I’m sure this has happened and the reason it happened is because although you may think the cases are identical, they are not.
Alexander, what do you do in honor trials? Have you seen several? Unless you’ve seen a dozen or more, I don’t think this type of proposal should be coming from you, it should be coming from the chair or the person in charge of the actual case. They are the ones who know if this is a problem. I bet two students have been turned in for committing two similar offenses. Ask the people who know about the specific cases if this has ever happened, and if so, if the verdicts were the same.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Sam, thanks for that input. If you can suggest some more workable method to get us closer to a more community-based system, that would be even better. Certainly you’d be well-qualified to do so.
Ben, although I have been unjustly treated by the system (in a previous Committee term), I would not say I have a vendetta against the system. I think (much as the Managing Board thinks of my current reform proposal) that it’s based on a great ideal, but has serious flaws that undermine its ability to do justice, its contribution to the spirit of honor and the community of trust, and its democratic standing. And yes, it would be better if reform proposals came from people with more knowledge of the system — but until the community in general, or at least members of the Committee who were not support officers for several years first, are allowed to know how cases are being resolved, that would allow only those most invested in the system as currently structured to bring forth reform proposals. And while occasionally some such person (such as Mr. Leven) might have a radical idea, mostly the reforms will be either trivial or based on the convenience of the Committee.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Alex,
How many of the open trials in the past few years did you go to? I went to one and completely agreed with the outcome, but after the trial, there was a lot of backlash from the community. I engaged in dialogue with many people who said the verdict was outrageous, and the only reason they thought it outrageous was because everything they knew (or thought they knew) about the trial was false. I gave them the real story since I was there and they all supported the trial. Also, did I mention that I got a ticket to see the open trial two days before it happened?
If what you’re looking for is a discussion about seriousness of an honor case, then you should hold a forum after open trials and discuss the case. Talk to observers (who witnessed the entire trial) about how they see this as being serious/not-serious. Going up to outsiders and reading them one piece of paper regarding the facts of the case- that is the biggest injustice of all.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Even though Alex’s proposal may seem extreme, I see it as a clear step up from the current system. The current system is unbelievably bad and has none of my support. I see a serious problem in how support members are chosen. The fact that they are chosen by a subjective decision of those already in the system resists community input that does not align with the current honor committee values. How can the honor system claim to represent the UVA community when a student interested in the system can be rejected from participating?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Oops, i realized i didnt tie in the beginning of my rant to the rest of it. The reason a reform is necessary is because the honor system is secret and chooses how to perpetuate itself without an avenue for community opinion to force itself upon the System.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
As I said above, people don’t go to open trials. This is the first place to take a proactive stand. Also, I’m going to group you with Alex. Did u try out for honor and not get it? Instead of bashing it, try to understand it.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Interesting proposal.
It seems like everyone who lost would attempt to get 500 signatures. (Random thought: they could forge those signatures if need be-Hell, they are already gonna get kicked out anyway why not try it)
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Earnan, I’d be quite pleased if everyone tried it; then every case that ended in conviction would come under public scrutiny. You’re right that forgery would be a concern, but there are ways to prevent that — especially if, as I proposed, each signer has to bring his own form back to Newcomb Hall.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
FWIW, I am reposting my here comments made to the news story. This proposal is nonsensical. Either you have a community that can really rely on the existence of an absolute standard that others will not lie, cheat, or steal, or you do not. As a law student over 30 years ago, I both prosecuted and defended honor cases at a time when final decisions were made by the Honor Committee, not some jury of students. Given the single sanction consequence, some of the accused students obviously regretted the actions they had committed. Most came up with convoluted rationalizations in an attempt to demonstrate their conduct was not otherewise reprehensible (the standard for judging an honor offense at the time). On the one hand, I often sympathized with them. On the other, however, I saw invariably it was they who chose (for whatever reason) to engage in conduct constituting an honor offense. The student body took great pains to publicize beforehand to all students matriculating at UVa that lying, cheating, and stealing would not be tolerated. Persons who preferred to look the other way or engage in such conduct were free to attend another institution of higher learning. There are certainly thousands of other schools out there! To attend Virginia, however, requires merely that one cease their lying, cheating, stealing ways for the duration of their stay at UVa. That the overwhelming number of students bought in to the concept, at least during the three years I spent in Charlottesville, made my life as a student all the better. I self-scheduled exams, wrote checks anywhere for any amount simply by showing my student id, left my possessions wherever convenient about the Law School with the reasonable expectation they would still be there upon my return, and found I could always count on the word of others in any material matter. To my way of thinking this injected tremendous freedom and security into the community atmosphere. I found that refreshing and unique in today’s world where it seems all manner of morals have been compromised to promote individual self-interest and political correctness. For one who has not enjoyed the benefit of residing in such a community, it is difficult to describe how pleasant the experience can be. Perhaps Mr. Cohen should concentrate more on adhering personally to the tenets of the Honor Code and less on worrying about those who chose not to do so. True, it is regrettable that some persons must be excluded from the community for failing to adhere to the standards of the Honor Code (which have been substantially compromised since I graduated). If such persons are not efficiently and permanently excluded, then the remaining community suffers by having to tolerate the offender within their presence. The unique atmosphere of community trust is soon compromised and destroyed. Allowing for reversal of an honor offense by either petition or plebiscite will gut the Honor Code. Let Mr. Cohen attend business school elsewhere. His nonsensical ideas are sure to be accepted at many universities where honor is of little concern.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
I have replied to Mr. Christopher’s remarks at the page for the news story. In that reply, I requested that he either substantiate or disavow his implications concerning my character.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
It is true I, like most students, had very little clue as to how the Honor system worked or what happened at trials. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing as long as the students felt that the Honor system was conducted by honorable (for lack of a better word) students. I doubt innocent students ever get convicted of honor offenses.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Rape is still not an honor offense.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
When a graduate student, I served on an Honor Jury for a hearing. It was difficult – a tough case that resulted in a former student being denied her degree after blatantly cheating. Although my fellow jurors felt badly for her, we all understood that her actions were, without question, a violation of our Honor System. That was our verdict, and we applied the single sanction. This decision was not reached lightly, nor the sanction applied frivolously.
I can assure you that the random-selection jury was the BEST way to go – we received training about the Honor System and our responsibility PRIOR to serving. Having participated in the process, I am certain that random selection is the only good option – there is a lot of discussion during deliberations, and, having representatives from across the student body made for a balanced set of perspectives.
Although tragic that a young woman felt she had to cheat to succeed, and ultimately failed in her efforts, I left the proceedings filled with pride about our Honor System. It works. It is worth upholding. If anything, we ought to invoke the single sanction more often, and expand the applicable offenses.
At my undergrad institution, we didn’t have this Honor System, and NOT having one did make a difference. Oh sure – my alma mater had a judicial system and a whole variety of sanctions, but it wasn’t as effective nor understood as well as the UVa Honor System. The biggest difference is that with our Honor System at UVa, there is an obligation and duty to participate by reporting violations. WE set the standards for ourselves to uphold, protecting our individual honor in the process. That the Honor System is student-focused and uncompromising is what makes it work.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0