Cavalier Daily faces UJC charges
Honor Committee chair alleges managing board breached confidentiality by publishing editorial about plagiarizing writer
Honor Committee Chair Ann Marie McKenzie has filed University Judiciary Committee charges against the five members of The Cavalier Daily's managing board, alleging an editorial printed last week breached confidentiality of a pending Honor case.
The Honor case concerns an incident of plagiarism involving a former Cavalier Daily staff writer. Earlier this month, the newspaper discovered that the writer submitted multiple columns containing plagiarized material, several of which were published. The managing board - comprised of Editor-in-Chief Jason Ally, Managing Editor Andrew Seidman, Executive Editor Matthew Cameron, Chief Financial Officer Allie Vandivier and Operations Manager Alyssa Juan - collectively authored an unsigned lead editorial disclosing the incident to readers. The editorial acknowledges that the paper "reported the incidents to the Honor Committee."
McKenzie contends that such disclosure violates Standard 11 of the University's Standards of Conduct, which prohibits "intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct which obstructs the operations of the Honor or Judiciary Committee, or conduct that violates their rules of confidentiality."
The UJC is currently in the process of determining whether or not the case falls within its jurisdiction, members of the managing board said. The Committee originally agreed to hear the case before the managing board called attention to Article II, Section D, Clause 5 of the UJC constitution, which states that the committee "shall not have jurisdiction over the exercise of journalistic and editorial functions by student groups."
Both sides have submitted briefs to the UJC Executive Committee, which will decide this morning whether or not to hear the case, Seidman said.
UJC Chair Victoria Marchetti and McKenzie both declined to comment on the case. Marchetti cited the need to maintain confidentiality throughout the proceedings.
The Cavalier Daily's leadership argued in its brief that the clause exempts the newspaper from the scrutiny of the student disciplinary group.
"The charges in this case relate to an offense that allegedly occurred with the publication of an unsigned editorial, an action outside of the UJC's purview according to Art. II, Sec. D, Cl. 5.," the brief says. "Therefore, the case cannot continue to trial because the UJC has no authority to rule on whether the action in question breached Standard 11."
Rebecca Glenberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, expressed similar doubts about the UJC's jurisdiction in journalistic matters. Glenberg is currently representing The Cavalier Daily and The Collegiate Times of Virginia Tech in a case regarding the appearance of alcohol advertisements in student newspapers.
"Clearly the judicial council shouldn't be initiating proceedings against The Cavalier Daily if the judicial council's bylaws deprive it of jurisdiction to act against student newspapers," she said. "The fact that The Cavalier Daily could be subject to discipline for writing about a matter of great importance for the University community without divulging the name of the student in question offers great constitutional concerns."
The editorial in question does not specify the name of the writer or any articles containing plagiarized content.
Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center, further denied the UJC's authority to hear the case. He said the case raises questions about the legitimacy of student self-governance.
"The judiciary committee may well believe it's a court," he said. "I assure you they are not. They exist as part of the University, which is organized under the executive branch of the Commonwealth of Virginia. They will come to find out they don't get to punish people the way judges do."
The Cavalier Daily has faced issues with plagiarism in the past, most recently in 2006. The managing board at the time disclosed the incident in an editorial but did not file honor charges against the accused student.
"[The student] was a young guy at the time," said Patrick Harvey, The Cavalier Daily's editor-in-chief during the incident. "I didn't want a big public record about him making a mistake."
Harvey said he and his colleagues did not face any punitive action from disciplinary committees at the time.
The current managing board said their decision to both file honor charges and disclose the report stemmed from an effort to maintain a balance between journalistic integrity and respect for Honor proceedings.
"The honor system works in a way where if you have knowledge of an honor offense and don't disclose it to the Honor Committee, you are just as liable as the person who committed the alleged offense," Ally said, adding that any reader in the "community of trust" could potentially file honor charges against the members of the managing board for failing to report.
According to the Honor Committee Constitution, a student will not be found guilty of an honor offense unless "evidence against him supports, beyond a reasonable doubt, an accusation of an act of lying, cheating, or stealing that he knew or a reasonable University of Virginia student should have known might constitute an Honor Offense," and the offense is deemed significant.
Additionally, while drafting the editorial, members of the managing board came to the conclusion that based on the context of the editorial, readers would be able to infer honor charges had been filed.
"The Cavalier Daily explicitly used the word plagiarism multiple times and said everything but that we had taken it to the Honor Committee," Seidman said. "We just felt it was a logical next step to be transparent with our readers."
Should the UJC Executive Committee decide the case falls within its jurisdiction, the trial is scheduled for Oct. 28.
-Although Ally and Seidman read this article before it printed, no member of the managing board edited or altered this piece written by staff members. Juan did not place this article online.
RSS


Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Joan
(09/22/11 1:43am)Report
It would seem to me that the Cavalier Daily Managing Board opens themselves up to further confidentiality violations by running this story. By signing it as "Cavalier Daily Staff" does that make the whole newspaper accountable for this article? For my friends at the CD I certainly hope not as I know they were not consulted before this article was run. It is unfortunate that these five members in charge have chosen to act in this manner.
Re:Joan
(09/22/11 2:36am)Report
Even if the Cav Daily opens themselves to confidentiality violations, it seems pretty clear that such charges hold absolutely no water. If UJC plays by its own rules, it has no jurisdiction over journalistic activity and therefore cannot keep the Cav Daily from publishing on the proceedings.
Reed
(09/22/11 2:51am)Report
It seems to me there are two arguments here:
1. The Cavalier Daily did not breach confidentiality because it did not reveal the name of the accused.\n2. The Cavalier Daily is immune to breaches of confidentiality, under their right as Freedom of the Press and the quoted Article of the UJC constitution.
1. is a question for a jury. 2., however, is the interesting one. Freedom of the press is not freedom to publish anything. The article in the UJC question seems to be, essentially, a student version of the first amendment. The UJC can't stifle articles, punish free speech, etc. But the fact of the matter is, their are two rights at stake here: the enumerated rights of the Cavalier Daily as a newspaper, and the enumerated rights to confidentiality of this accused student. The writers of the Cavalier Daily are, after all, students themselves, and when they submitted Honor Charges they agreed to play by Honor's rules. It seems ludicrous to say any newspaper can print anything anytime about anyone--legal precedence tells us they cannot. It also seems outrageous to say that the editors of the Cav Daily-students-cannot violate the confidentiality clause when talking to a group of friends on the Lawn, but CAN when they put on their Cav Daily Hats and announce it to the entire school via the newspaper. If they had a list of every student with a pending honor trial, could they really publish it and claim immunity?
The rights of a newspaper extend so far as so they do not encroach on the rights of an individual. If the CavDaily had directly published this kids name, I would say they had breached the Standards of Conduct. But, since it would take rather laborious research to figure out what person has been charged and I (and hopefully everybody) have better things to do with my time, I think they have a fair claim that they did not breach confidentiality. But if they had, I don't think they can separate themselves so easily from the standards and rules to which students must adhere.
Practical
(09/22/11 3:19am)Report
"Harvey said he and his colleagues did not face any punitive action from disciplinary committees at the time."
If Harvey's MB didn't file Honor charges, of course they wouldn't face punitive action. You can't breach confidentiality, if there was no agreement to confidentiality in the first place. The comparison the "CD Staff" made is illegitimate, as one MB filed Honor charges, and the other didn't. Thus, the later didn't agree to Honor's policy, which would exempt them from any punitive action.
Joe Jeanes
(09/22/11 3:49am)Report
The only honor code UVA has is if you do not break it you are expelled!
Check your facts
(09/22/11 5:41am)Report
Ally, the "non-toleration clause" (in which a student who is aware of another committing an Honor offense and does not report it is equally guilty) was repealed in the 1970's.
While I do believe in student self governance and praise the Managing Board for holding their peer accountable for his actions, I also believe that an avid reader of the CD (and especially other staff of the CD) could possibly figure out who this person is based on the statement that all of his articles had been deleted. I believe this combined with the clear confirmation that the case had been reported to Honor is clearly a violation of that student's privacy.
johnb
(09/22/11 6:37am)Report
This only makes the UJC look like a joke. The paper needed to come clean and admit their integrity had been breached.It never should have gone to the UJC who are hard at working plumping up their law school resumes.
George
(09/22/11 7:40am)Report
So this will be decided today whether to continue by UJC leadership according to this article, and the CD staff decided to undermine that process by running this story. It seems like they are acting like inpatient children who expect immediate decisions. The writers here are students of UVA first and are bound by the same code of confidentiality as the rest of the students. Printing things in a newspaper protects your opinion for sure, but you cannot violate such a basic right as confidentiality by putting whatever you want in print. I am no expert here, but the question on whether confidentiality was actually violated here is one best left for a UJC trial. For now it is little more than an allegation.
Illini
(09/22/11 9:27am)Report
I applaud the managing board of the Cavalier Daily for their leadership concerning this matter. They held their peer accountable to his actions. His misstep in his integrity has a profound effect for the Cavalier Daily and for the managing board to let readers know about this incident was the right thing to do. A newspaper needs to hold its writers accountable for their stories because newspapers and mass communication are two strong foundations for self-governance. Writing in the public realm, as the charged student did, will lead others to try and figure out who that writer is but the managing board never explicitly stated his name which is not a breach of his or her confidentiality. I believe it is unfortunate that the Honor Committee Chair of the UJC is filing charges against the Cavalier Daily for teaching students, faculty, and the larger community about the importance of journalistic standards and integrity.
Reed
(09/22/11 10:42am)Report
Everybody should really consider the implications here. I'm on the Cav Daily's side for most everything here. They demonstrated a staunch support of journalistic integrity. But if they felt--as students--that they were compelled by the Honor Code to submit the student to the Honor Committee then they must feel--as students--they are required to uphold the confidentiality clause. Again, I believe they did as they did not publish the student's name. But if we are to accept the argument that there is no oversight here, then the Cav Daily DOES gain the ability to publish such private information without reprimand. Your rights as a student include guaranteed privacy in an Honor Proceeding, and there is absolutely no way I want the school newspaper to be able to, in theory, divulge that information to the University at large.
Sean
(09/22/11 11:10am)Report
The Cav Daily has no integrity to lose. But neither does the Honor Committee. This newspaper regularly censors and edits letters, articles, and comments that don't mesh with their political agenda, lets dangerous medical misinformation stand, and deletes posts featuring peer reviewed medical science. The ombudsman also simply ignores all of this.
That being said, I am on the Cav Daily’s side here. The Committee has no right to compel a newspaper to gag itself in a story about itself. They should have also printed the student’s name who they accuse of plagiarism. I’ll bet every purse and wallet on that Committee has a fraudulent ID card in it that was paid for. And they will continue ignore the thousands of cases at UVA where students are caught with same. Happens dozens of times every weekend. Note the difference in speed and seriousness between this case and that of Jonathan Perkins filing a false police report many months ago. This Honor crap – at a university that is dishonest every day – is really entertaining to those of us on the outside looking in. Do you REALLY think you’re fooling or impressing anyone outside of your insular little world?
Reed
(09/22/11 12:08pm)Report
Sean,
Your indignant ad hominem and strawman attacks aside (directed towards both sides of this issue, each whom I respect), we have to get to heart of the matter. UJC is not bringing charges because the Cav Daily ran an article where they mentioned firing a student who plagiarized for their paper, or for talking about journalistic integrity. It's the fact that they revealed that they had filed a claim to the Honor Committee. [If they had used the student's name] they [would have] breached confidentiality, a right expressively given to those in pending honor investigations. They could have screamed about the evils of plagiarism until they were blue in the face, denounced the author of the articles (by name, even) as lying scum unfit for the University, but as soon as they mentioned filing that report, they impeded on his rights as a student-on-trial.
I see why they did it, and why they think they can. It was a member of their organization performing a public act of dishonesty, whom they know certainly plagiarized. But s/he has not been formally tried or found guilty, and the fact that s/he was part of their staff is, ultimately, irrelevant. S/he is still guaranteed privacy, and no student can break that lest they face violations of standards of conduct.
Still think they didn't because of the anonymity they were careful to exercise. But this is, again, a matter of principle.
Milhouse
(09/22/11 12:59pm)Report
The jurisdiction issue is pretty clear. Nothing much to argue there. The rest is fun to discuss but irrelevant. Nevertheless, because it's fun, I'll ramble on . . .
From the CD story,
". . . Standard 11 of the University’s Standards of Conduct, which prohibits 'intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct which obstructs the operations of the Honor or Judiciary Committee, or conduct that violates their rules of confidentiality.' "
Note the call for intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct. I think this is neither reckless or negligent. They were very thoughtful in their deliberation over what to reveal. That leaves intentional. They clearly intentionally released the information, but the intention typically refers to the intention to obstruct operations or violate rules.
I don't believe the MB wrote what they did with the intention of interfering with the HC or UHC operations, nor did they intend to violate the confidentiality rules. Maybe they broke them, but it's clear from the editorial itself that a great deal of effort went into it, and there was an effort to maintain as much confidentiality as they could while attempting to come clean about the dishonesty perpetrated on their readers.
I appreciate the UJC's efforts to maintain the integrity of their system, but at the same time they have a duty to respect those who do the same for their institutions. The right thing here is for the UJC to back down. If they don't, they're putting themselves and the University at risk. They will lose the case. Not only that, they will lose respect. The right thing here is for this all to go away.
Sean
(09/22/11 1:18pm)Report
Indignant? Yes. But not ad hominem or strawman in any way. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. You won't even try..
1. Whatever rules or bylaws the UJC is invoking in its arbitrary attempt to regain relevance do not supercede or trump the first amendment protections and freedom of the press, just as some secret society cannot enforce its code of conduct in violation of state or federal law.
2. The individual in question remains anonymous because he or she was not named by the newspaper, although they had every right to do so by the real laws that actually apply here.
3. Even in a Kangaroo Court like this arbitrary Honor Court, I presume suspects are still innocent until proven guilty. Your post, Reed, suggests this process - which you seem to admire so much - is over before it starts.
Reed
(09/22/11 1:47pm)Report
"Newspaper censors articles, opinions...that don't fit with their political agenda." "I'll bet every purse and wallet on the committee has a fraudulent ID."\nAd Hominem attacks and Strawman arguments--not related to issue at hand.
1. Freedom of the press is not freedom to publish anything, this is obvious. We have libel laws for this very reason. This wasn't libel, per se, but it did infringe on the individual's rights. My whole point is that the Newspaper has freedom of the press up to the point of infringing upon another.
2. Do not think they should have named him, do agree with anonymity.
3. It is not over before it starts. That's why they shouldn't have mentioned the case before it started...
Reed
(09/22/11 3:17pm)Report
I'll summarize my several posts succinctly. No newspaper or print material is granted rights that EXCEED those of individuals. If a person has the right to hold an opinion, or if a person has the right to share a story, it may be published. But since if a person is found to violate the S.o.C. when he tells a friend about a pending honor trial--since he does not have that right--we do not turn around and say that a newspaper, in fact, DOES have that right. It is granted no more liberties than you or I.
Sean
(09/22/11 5:46pm)Report
The overall issue here is whether the UJC or the Cav Daily managing board has any integrity to throw at each other in the first place. I provided firm examples illustrating that neither of them do. Perhaps you should look up what the terms ad hominem and strawman mean.
Reed
(09/22/11 10:13pm)Report
You have just defined BOTH for me. The argument is whether the jurisdiction of the UJC extends to breaching confidentiality. You, instead:
1. Throw out unsupported assaults regarding the character of the people in involved (quintessential ad hominem)\n2. The fact that since they 'ignore', you claim, several other breaches of the Standards of Contact they have no right to charge anybody (strawman...And a little ad hominem).
Both of these ignore the basic argument: whether the constitutions of the UJC and the Honor Committee allow them to charge printed confidentiality breaches. Your answer "NO BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL FILTHY HYPOCRITES" adds nothing of use or relevance to this discussion. You had one sentence in your first post of merit: "The Committee has no right to compel a newspaper to gag itself in a story about itself." But it's surrounded on either side by opinionated garble that does not support your claim or refute any others.
Bob
(09/22/11 10:36pm)Report
Am I the only one deeply disturbed that the Editor-in-Chief of the Cavalier Daily doesn't know that the non-toleration clause has not existed for decades? If you do not report an offense, you ARE NOT liable for an Honor Offense yourself, this has not been the case in decades. How can you lead the major student newspaper and not know that BASIC fact?!
Jeff
(09/22/11 10:57pm)Report
“'The honor system works in a way where if you have knowledge of an honor offense and don’t disclose it to the Honor Committee, you are just as liable as the person who committed the alleged offense,” Ally said, adding that any reader in the “community of trust” could potentially file honor charges against the members of the managing board for failing to report.'"
Mr Ally seems to really be up-to-date on the Honor Committee Bylaws. I'm sure the cavalier daily's next big act of social and political justice will be to argue that women need to be allowed to attend the University.
Matt
(09/22/11 11:07pm)Report
This reads like a bunch of students deciding they need to cause some drama so they can get attention at this school. You guys do realize this is just college, right? UJC isn't a tribunal. The Cavalier Daily isn't The Wall Street Journal. You are a school honor committee and a school newspaper. Act accordingly, and refrain from behaving like this is actually newsworthy. You're college students, not important people in society whose business anyone could actually care to get involved in.
Jeff
(09/22/11 11:20pm)Report
This is the University of Virginia. The thing that sets us apart is that we DO care what happens to the institutions that govern our lives as students. That's the only reason that institutions like the UJC and the Honor Committee are allowed to function with as much autonomy as they do. The way we get to be "important people in society," as you so lucidly and specifically put it, is by developing the kinds of skills nurtured through participating in student self-governance. What's more, UVa is about producing good citizens. The fact that student issues evoke heated responses reflects the health, not deficiency of University culture.
Re:Bob
(09/23/11 1:43pm)Report
"The Committee originally agreed to hear the case before the managing board called attention to Article II, Section D, Clause 5 of the UJC constitution, which states that the committee “shall not have jurisdiction over the exercise of journalistic and editorial functions by student groups.”"
Am I the only one disturbed by the fact that neither the UJC chair nor the Honor chair seem to know what is in the UJC constitution? How can you lead a body that has the power to kick students out of UVA if you don't even know the rules of that body's constitution?
Check your facts
(09/23/11 4:46pm)Report
Re:Bob, Honor and UJC are completely separate organizations with separate constitutions. The Honor chair is meant to be an authority on the constitution and by-laws of her organization and let the UJC chair be the authority on her's. I do not think it would be right or responsible for Honor to decide what may or may not be within UJC's jurisdiction and vice versa.
As with everything in life, there could be much more to this story than what has been reported. It doesn't sound like you are a UJC judge, so we should trust the representatives all students had the option of voting for to make this decision based on ALL the facts rather than just those released by the reported party.