THERE are many controversial proposals in the recently released Honor System Review Commission report, including getting rid of student juries and changing the format of the trial process. Faculty and students are worried that these changes will give the Honor Committee, a group of 21 elected student representatives, too much power, thus getting in the way of the principle of student self-governance that we hold dear.
There should be no question about it. These proposals will increase the power and control of the Committee. But this does not in any way undermine the student control and "self-governance" of the honor system.
|
There are 10 proposals in the report that would change the actual disciplinary system. In Proposal 7, randomly selected student juries would be eliminated, and an accused student would have the choice between a panel of Committee members or a mixed panel, consisting of four Committee members and five randomly chosen students.
Also, the current "legalistic" and "adversarial" trial method would be replaced by a more "administrative" approach, under Proposal 6. In this, the role of counsel would be eliminated. The accused student would tell his side of the story "in his own words," and the juries themselves would question the witnesses.
If Proposal 8 is enacted, for each case the Investigative Panel, comprised of three Committee members, would have the final say on seriousness, no matter what a jury finds.
Other proposals give the Committee more flexibility in getting testimony from witnesses (Proposal 9), amending by-laws (Proposal 11), and admitting evidence (Proposal 12).
But why do we need these changes anyway? First, the changes in jury makeup will increase the fairness and consistency in rulings, and decrease the probability for jury error or bias by adding the knowledge of trained Committee members. The changes in procedure would emphasize the goal of seeking the truth rather than facilitating heated rhetoric between the two parties.
Looking over these proposals, it should be clear that the Committee would have more control of the disciplinary process. The question is, what effect will this shift in power have on the honor system and the University?
Keep in mind that the main concern of the honor system is not due process or even justice; it is truth. It seems fair to give control to elected officials whose main concern is the pursuit of truth and honor at the University.
But some people are wary of putting this much power in the hands of a group of students. They believe that this would somehow take that power away from the student body as a whole, or even undermine the honor system itself.
For instance, some may argue that student juries are representative of student power over the honor system, and that eliminating them will just reduce the ideal of "self-governance." But there is little to suggest that this is true. In fact, the mixed jury option would give more power to the randomly selected students, who outnumber the Committee representatives on these juries.
If these measures are adopted, this jury format would be the one endorsed by the Committee, with the option open for an all-Committee jury.
Giving more power to the Committee is not necessarily a bad thing. These 21 representatives are elected directly by the student body. Their chief goal is to uphold honor in the University community. These students have taken an interest in preserving this aspect of the University and deserve our trust in overseeing the honor system.
And for those who still are worried that the power will be taken away from the students, take a look at some of the other proposals.
Proposal 2 would call to promote the ideals of honor in the University community aggressively. Proposal 3 would "expand the training of Honor Committee members and support officers." Proposal 4 addresses problems with the honor system and diversity. And Proposal 15 calls to "educate and obtain feedback" about this report by the community.
Most of the University agrees that there are some changes needed in the honor system. And in debating these proposals, many legitimate questions will be raised. Putting our trust in the Committee won't compromise our ideals of student self-governance, but it will help to preserve the importance of the honor system.
(Brian Cook's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He is a member of the first-year honor association.)
Read More
A statement to the presidential search committee from the UCWVA-UVA Chapter
By Faculty Committee of the UCWVA-UVA | YesterdayNo number of “listening sessions” or other forms of outreach provide constituencies with the access, accountability and real influence that come with serving on the search committee.
EDITORIAL: Honor lives on — with room for improvement
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoHonor is still a staple of the student vocabulary — just more often as a facetious justification for leaving one’s backpack unattended than as a true rationale for remaining academically honest.
CASTAGNO: U.Va. paved paradise, but we still need more parking lots
By Conall Castagno | August 18, 2025For better or worse, a substantial number of students bring their cars to school every year. The University can either choose to ignore this fact, or they can accommodate their students.
