RIGHT NOW the students at this fine academic institution are voting on four proposed changes to the honor system. This column will not attempt to break down all of the proposals and say why they all will eventually lead to the end of life as University students know it. They won't. In fact, two of the proposals - making academic cheating serious and instituting mixed trial panels consisting of Honor Committee members and students - seem like good enough ideas.
One of them - reducing the voting threshold for a student to be found guilty from four-fifths to two-thirds - is quite scary and should be voted down with enthusiasm by those who want to ensure that guilty people rather than more-than-likely guilty people are asked to leave the University.
But the primary concern lies with the fourth proposal, the one that changes the roles of counsel. Currently, one counsel presents the point of view of the accusation - essentially the prosecution - and the other presents for the accused - basically the defense.
The proposal would eliminate entirely the role of accusation counsel, replacing it with "community representatives" and a more active trial panel. Accused counsel would be relegated to a back-up role, helping an accused student prepare for the trial, and would speak on behalf of him or her if the student simply couldn't speak in such a pressure-packed situation.
By eliminating accusation counsel and putting a greater burden on the trial panel to ask questions of witnesses and probe for information, the proposal clearly places the panel in a more confrontational role. While trial panelists currently have the option to ask questions, they may rely upon accusation counsel to drag out the majority of relevant information from the case at hand. By eliminating the accusation counsel role, trial panelists that at least could think of themselves as impartial arbiters of fact now must take on an aggressive, institutionally-imposed role.
|
If pursuing the truth is a key element of the honor system, panelists would be most likely to find what actually happened if disinterested third parties, in the form of trained counsel, were given a particular task, ample preparation time and the opportunity to present a strong case.
Another problem with this proposal centers on the wholesale assumption that lawyering is evil. For the last three months, members of the Committee have reveled in the descriptions of bad counsel in the honor system. Such descriptions have usually been stereotypical, dismissive and over-simplified.
Kennon Poteat, Committee vice chair for trials, refers to "Law students who want to get up there and be Johnnie Cochran" during trials ("Honor votes to send proposals to referendum," The Cavalier Daily, Jan. 22). Committee Chairman Thomas Hall describes honor trials as a "courtroom game by a bunch of would-be lawyers" ("Honor votes to send four proposals to referendum," The Cavalier Daily, Jan. 30).
As a fellow would-be lawyer, I feel compelled to respond. From the descriptions of people opposed to overactive counsel, it sounds as though they are not opposed to attorneys. It sounds as though they are opposed to bad attorneys. Believe it or not, there is a difference. Unfortunately, no one has bothered to mention that in any of the debates on this proposal.
Amazingly, the Committee itself has the power to decide who has the right to participate as counsel. It decides who gets trained and sets the procedures they must follow. It can expel anybody it wishes from the counsel pool. In effect, it acts as the State Bar Association for honor.
The only thing standing between wholesale exclusion of bad lawyers and the supposedly counsel-inspired hinter-lands in which the system currently resides is the elimination of the right of students to have any student at the University act as a counsel.
Yes, it's a constitutional right. It can also be eliminated through a student referenda, similar to the one proposed now. By amending the constitution the Committee would have greater control over bad counsel. It would give accused students qualified advisors to assist them in presenting their side to the trial panel. It would also preserve a slightly competitive system in which both sides - accused and accusation - would work to present the most amount of information supportive of their respective positions. While getting rid of bad attorneys may be a reasonable goal of all, this particular proposal doesn't do that. It only harms the rights of accused students and harms the system by putting trial panelists in a more active, accusatory role.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com. He is an honor counsel.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 19 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn 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.
