MEANINGFUL IDEAS don't change. If Marxism is wrong, it can't become right. If honor is right, it can't become wrong.
The Honor Committee is under the impression that its rules, procedures and so forth must be modernized to reflect the mores and the social norms of today. Not only is this misguided; the fruits of their labors are harmful.
The Honor System Review Commission's report claims that "the honor system, we recognize, is not, and never has been, a static, unchanging affair." They support this with reference to changes in the student population. If the honor system is altered simply because there are more students, then honor is a bankrupt idea. Lack of integrity is lack of integrity - in 1842, when there were only 128 white male students just as surely as today.
|
Since the Commission in the introduction to its report uses only demographic evidence to prove that the honor system is evolutionary, they're saying that pluralism in the student body has contributed to a weakening of student devotion and obedience to the honor system.
This is obviously not what the Review Commission wants to say; that's why it backed out of this a few paragraphs later saying, "The University's relatively recently achieved and deeply cherished diversity has also posed problems for the honor system. This is not, in our view, because any group or groups within the University community are less deeply committed to the ideal of honorable behavior." The report goes on to speak of how minority groups feel singled out and "cling to each other for mutual support and nourishment." But if seeking refuge in your community is inconsistent with reporting honor violations, then the Review Commission means just what it says it doesn't mean - that some groups do prioritize their commitment to the system less than other groups, no matter their reason for doing so.
The Committee's crafting of this proposal establishes as precedent modifying the honor system periodically. Future Committees may find themselves "updating" their standards when students no longer consider academic fraud a "big deal." Hopefully, this is unsettling to you.
You don't have to wait, however, for some future student generation to be bent on cheating and lying to be disturbed by changes in the honor system. There's enough in this report that should aggravate you.
Instead of the "adversarial" - what a nasty word, surely we must get rid of it - model of adjudication, the Committee wishes the "highest premium [be] placed on the pursuit of truth." (Proposal 6). The report is exaggerating in saying this because if the "highest premium" were really placed on truth, then we might expect the Committee to exact confessions with the rack in the near future.
This illustrates the truth-justice conundrum of law. The more adamant a system is in seeking truth, the more it must trample procedural due process and the more unjust it is to the accused. By contrast, the more a system relies on procedure and rules, the less assured you may be that you will arrive at the truth. The report correctly observes that it is much more costly to be kicked out today than it was in the past; this is precisely why when we expel a member of our community, we ought to consider assuring them a procedurally fair trial.
We should therefore meet with skepticism the renaming of the "Trial" as a "Hearing" and the "Confrontation" as the "Interview," which are euphemisms for "Spit out all the information, even incriminating stuff."
The Review Commission proposes to get rid of opening and closing statements thereby eliminating "grandstanding." It also eliminates the possibility to make a coherent argument.
The Commission proposes to eliminate the entirely random student jury. If the system truly is "ours," as the Committee is oft to say, then why can't its owners sit on a jury and review a case? And if the student jury is eliminated, what will that do for the minorities that the Committee believes are disenfranchised and already are avoiding participation in the honor system because they feel it is distant and targets them?
The Commission proposes to lower the bar from four-fifths to two-thirds of the jury for conviction. This is exceedingly easy. Not only is it easier to collect evidence for investigators in a less adversarial environment, but the burden to make a case is relieved, because fewer persons have to believe the respondent is guilty.
The Commission proposes to eliminate the right to confront and cross-examine an accuser. The Commission reasons that the system is intended to be administrative, not confrontational, therefore facing an accuser is unnecessary and allows losers in an honor suit to claim a due process violation, where no due process is guaranteed. It seems that the Commission should focus on making due process a guarantee, as opposed to truth, because an inability to face an accuser amounts frequently to an impotence in being able to make one's case in one's own defense.
The Honor Committee must lose the idea that the system needs to be au courant. Step one, if adopted by the community, will shave away the rights that any defendant should expect. Don't just take my word, though. Read the report.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg's column normally appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 19 hours agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | 19 hours agoIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | YesterdayI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
