Two weeks ago Saturday, the Honor Committee confirmed something I’ve long suspected about the University: we care more about bureaucracy than students. Sitting in the audience of the first public Honor trial in years, I watched for hours as Honor representatives and a jury of peers grilled an international student. Absent from this examination, though, were some key pieces of evidence.
According to the accused, she was barred from submitting her dyslexia as evidence. She may have been referring to the Contributory Mental Disorder policy outlined in Part IV, Section D of the Honor by-laws. If the student chooses to go the route of the CMD, they must prove to an independent Psychological Evaluation Panel that the mental disorder in question “(a) significantly contributed to the commission of an Alleged Honor Offense, and/or (b) renders such student substantially unable to understand the relevant Honor charges or to assist in his or her own defense.” If these criteria are met, then the Honor charges are dropped. However, if the mental disorder is determined not to have “significantly contributed” to the offense, then the student’s case is turned back over to Honor, with an admission of act entailed. See, in order to even be considered for CMD, the student must first admit to the guilty act — there is no way to admit learning disabilities as evidence without admitting guilt first.
What about if a learning disability is relevant to the case but not to the level of “significance” required by the CMD? Honor has a by-law stating that any “Psychological Evidence” is inadmissible in hearings, and can only be mentioned “at a Hearing on CMD.” This means that all “evidence relating to the mental state of the accused student” is excluded from Honor hearings, including “diagnoses on psychological or psychiatric matters.”
It seems this rule exists to prevent students from basing their defenses on things that are difficult to independently verify. However, these rules betray a dangerously binaristic understanding of learning disabilities: either they hugely contribute to the honor offense — enough to not only explain the act of the offense, but also constitute it — or they are so insignificant (or too difficult to verify) as to have no place in the hearing. There is no space in between these extremes — no “contribution” short of complete causality.
Perhaps because of these rules, this student could not discuss how her dyslexia hurt her performance in a class without admitting to a crime she may not have committed. Nor could she address in depth the fact that her fellow students refused to work with her in study groups because of this. Such relevant pieces of evidence should be welcomed during Honor hearings. Their omission encourages the unfair targeting of students with learning disabilities.
The student also claimed she was forbidden from sharing the fact that a guilty verdict could cause her to lose her student visa, meaning she would be forced to leave our country if she could not manage to transfer. I would like to agree with Honor’s commitment to ignoring evidence that carries “unfair prejudicial” weight. But when data show guilty honor charges are disproportionately handed down to international students, we should ask ourselves whether the outcome of a ruling is actually irrelevant to the case. Why is it that a group whose inclusion at this school is so provisionary should bear the brunt of our outdated and unpopular single sanction? I should note that this student spoke with an accent, and referenced her British nationality at multiple points. If the jurors can already infer the sanction would carry particularly grave consequences for this student in particular, isn’t the omission of this evidence just a self-defeating attempt to ignore the elephant in the room?
I like to think the Honor Committee had good intentions when formulating these rules. But no matter the intention, the effect is evident: our honor system targets those students whose equal treatment ought to be a priority — international students and students with learning disabilities.
The exclusion of evidence is only one reason of many why this should be labeled a mistrial. Honor verdicts are determined by a four-fifths majority, meaning that as many as two out of the 10 jurors could have maintained this student’s innocence (or at least, maintained that her guilt was not proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the jury would still pass a guilty verdict. If this sounds wildly inappropriate, it’s because it is. Anything short of a unanimous decision should carry no power in these trials. This peculiar divergence from the unanimity required by most federal and state juries truly lies beyond the pale.
Despite the intense embarrassment I felt for this school during the trial and which I continue to feel weeks later, I am so glad this student waived her right to a private trial. Being able to witness this hearing as it happened, I begin to wonder: How many international students has the Honor Committee unjustly expelled behind closed doors? How many students with learning disabilities were forced to choose between admission of act and total silence, the Scylla and Charybdis of guilt? I hope the Honor Committee takes a moment to recognize how their exclusion of data in this case unduly hurt the accused. More than that, I hope Honor retracts its verdict and offers this student a retrial. What happened that Saturday contradicts what I want the University to be: firm in its morals, fair in its judgment and above all, kind.
Drew Kiser is a fourth-year College student.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 11 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
