The Honor Committee will vote Sunday on a proposal to eliminate the seriousness clause in the Committee constitution.
The measure would end the current practice of student jurors voting first to convict an accused student on act and intent before determining whether the offense was serious enough to merit expulsion.
Currently, students found guilty of act and intent but not guilty through the seriousness clause receive no punishment. The Committee does not release the reason for a student being found not guilty in a closed Honor trial.
In order for the proposal to come into effect, two-thirds of the Committee would have to vote in favor of the motion. Then, a referendum would be issued which would need the approval of 60 percent of the voting student body population.
"There are merits to both sides of the argument regarding the seriousness clause," Committee Chair Carey Mignerey said. "We are discussing the matter because we are interested in a transparent and healthy debate and because we want to ensure that the Honor system is the best mechanism of preserving our community of trust."
The proposal, written by Nick Staubach, sanctioning ad hoc committee chair, cites that a shortcoming of the current Honor system is that small violations go unpunished and often unnoticed by the community of trust. For example, stealing silverware or cheating on small homework assignments technically violate the Honor pledge, but they most likely would not be seen as an honor offense because of a lack of "seriousness."
The proposal goes on to say the seriousness clause blurs the line between what is and what is not serious, leading the community at large to believe that Honor has nothing to do with non-serious violations of the community of trust.
"The Honor system, although it may only deal with serious acts of lying, cheating and stealing, in fact has a much broader implication for the idea of integrity," Mignerey said. "The proposal maintains an attempt to guarantee integrity, but does so by widening what the Honor system is equipped to deal with."
The seriousness clause has been in effect for a little over a decade and its original purpose is to protect students from expulsion for insignificant acts that would satisfy definitions of act and intent, according to the proposal.
"It angers me that students are able to walk who have committed honor offenses," said Andrew Painter, sanctioning ad hoc committee member. "This means that liars, cheaters and stealers are sitting next to us and that is not right at all."
The proposal desires to replace the idea of "seriousness" with a Motion to Dismiss for Triviality at Pre-Trial. The proposal puts forth that trials would only consist of judging act and intent, likely reducing trial length and reducing jury nullification.
"I do not agree with the proposal," Vice-Chair for Investigations Logan Moncrief said. "The best way that I have seen is judging seriousness as interpreted by student jurors, the way the current system works."
Read More
Who is Interim President Paul G. Mahoney?
By Brandon Kile | 2 hours agoThe former Law dean joined the University Law School faculty in 1990 and served as academic associate dean of the School of Law from 1999 to 2004.
Why a judge ruled against allowing Youngkin appointees to serve
By Nina Broderick | YesterdayThe denied appointees are now not recognized as official members and they can not vote or attend meetings.
Will Ryan’s resignation impact the University’s reaccreditation?
By Leigh Bailey | 3 days agoDr. Janea Johnson, public relations and data specialist at SACSCOC, said in a written statement to The Cavalier Daily July 28 that “a change in leadership does not automatically become a compliance concern.”
