The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

An unenlightened proposal

The Honor Committee should focus on democratizing the honor system rather than trying to grab power

I was not surprised to hear that the Honor Committee is considering abolishing all-student juries ("Honor may rid of student juries," Oct. 4). After all, the Committee, its deep-pocketed endowment and the Purple Shadows have been using undemocratic means to wrest democratic power from the student body for years - from the endowment's financial support of pro-single sanction campaigns to the internalized power structure that always seems to elect a likeminded leadership. But the proposal to abolish all-student juries takes the cake for honor power grabs.

The argument of those proposing to abolish all-peer juries is not new. In fact, it is as old as the American republic. It is the argument that the non-elite masses are uneducated and thus must be governed by more enlightened leaders. Luckily, our founders were enlightened enough to quash it, guaranteeing citizens a trial by jury with the Third and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.

Yet some entrenched members of the Committee believe our founders, including the founder of our University himself, were misguided in assuming "government for and by the people." Indeed, at an institution that attracts extremely high-caliber students, it is ludicrous to say the average student cannot understand the concepts of "intent" and "triviality." It would be even more ridiculous to believe that members of the Committee are any more enlightened than the average student.

Much like the notion of "honor" itself, enlightenment is subjective. Applied to the American legal system, a qualification of enlightenment would require that half of all juries be made up of graduates of law school, because they better understand the law and will make better judgments. While their knowledge of the legal system and its terminology may well be superior, law students, like Committee members, are by no means more qualified to delineate right and wrong.

If the Committee believes the masses to be unenlightened, why would they limit student involvement in the system? The Committee should welcome the opportunity to have more jurors from outside of the Committee, as it provides the Committee with an occasion to educate. Most important, the open-mindedness of the average student should be embraced as a welcome foil to the groupthink mentality of Committee members.

In general, knowledge of the system is even less important when the system itself is theoretically debased and unrepresentative of our post-modern world. Based on its origins, the concept of honor is West-centric, male-centric and, dare I say it, white-centric. Like all organs of student self-governance at the University, the honor system is a historically white organization that fails to incorporate diverse value and belief systems.

And that raises my final point: diversity. Worse than having juries filled with Committee members pre-disposed to upholding the honor system is having predominantly white juries filled with Committee members pre-disposed to upholding the honor system. The Committee continues to consider diversity in recruitment efforts, But - as all organs of student self-governance at the University have realized - it is not so easy to overcome a historically white past. Enter: the Purple Shadows.

Members of the Committee serving on juries, of course, could be encouraged to take into account diversity in cases with students from different backgrounds, but that, too, would be unjust. A jury of randomly selected peers presents the same chance of racial partiality, but at least it is not as preordained as Committee-dominated juries. And with all juries of peers, it must be remembered that students are removed from the jury pool if they have any objection to the single sanction - simply another way to quell diversity of opinion in all Honor Committee trials.

It is impossible to imagine the mental torment that accused students face. One can only imagine being forced to face a randomly selected group of peers that has the power to determine your future. If that is not intimidating enough, imagine being faced with a jury, half of which has devoted their undergraduate careers to upholding the honor system, steeped in the merits of the single sanction. Then imagine - if you need to - being a non-native English speaker, an international student or a student of color.

It is time for the Committee to realize that it represents students from many backgrounds and is not elected merely to cultivate its own power. It is time for the Committee to spend less effort centralizing power and more effort democratizing. And it is time for students to rise up and show the Committee, its endowment and the Purple Shadows that the voice of students still reigns in the system of student self-governance. After all, abolishing all-student juries is not only anti-Madisonian and anti-Jeffersonian; It is anti-American.

Ryan McElveen is a 2008 graduate of the University and a former Student Council chief of cabinet.

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt