After a spirited debate last night, the Honor Committee voted 12-8 with one abstention against a proposal to abolish the seriousness clause from its constitution.
"I think the Committee gave the proposal a fair and honest debate, and I was very happy to see that the Committee meeting was very transparent," Committee Chair Carey Mignerey said. "We had many observers also give their opinion of the matter, so I feel like the Committee certainly decided with a very informed and thoughtful debate preceding the vote."
Nick Staubach, sanctioning ad hoc committee chair, drafted the proposal to eliminate the seriousness clause. Instead of an act being judged on seriousness by a panel of student jurors, a panel of at least two elected Committee members hearing the case would decide if the act was something of a "trivial nature," the proposal stated.
"Obviously I am not pleased," Staubach said. "I mean, we spent a lot of time coming up with the proposal, but I'd say that the Committee has put a lot of thought into it, and I feel like they did what they thought was best in the interest of the community."
Currently, the seriousness clause is one of three criterion used to determine whether or not an honor offense has occurred. During an honor trial, a panel of jurors votes on act and intent and subsequently, if necessary, decides if open toleration of the act would violate the community of trust sufficiently enough to warrant expulsion.
Under the single sanction provision of the constitution, a student found guilty of an honor offense will be dismissed from the University. The purpose of the seriousness clause is to safeguard against non-serious acts, such as stealing silverware or receiving unauthorized help on a small homework assignment, resulting in gratuitous expulsion.
Vice Chair for Investigations Logan Moncrief said he anticipated the proposal would not be received favorably by the Committee.
"I'm not surprised," Moncrief said. "I thought it was going to be really hard for the Committee to pass that. I didn't think the support was there from the beginning."
Moncrief said his main concern was how the proposal was going to be received by students. Any time the Committee puts referenda of this nature on the ballot during elections, the student body sees it as a "power grab" by the Committee, he said. If the proposal had passed, it would have then appeared on a University-wide referenda requiring the approval of 60 percent of students.
Proponents of the proposal said they were concerned that the honor system is undermined when a student found guilty of act and intent is let off because the act is not deemed serious enough to warrant dismissal from the University. Moncrief, however, said this circumstance has rarely arisen.
"I've never seen a case that's been found guilty on act and intent but not seriousness," Moncrief said.
Despite his disappointment about the outcome, Staubach said he appreciated the deliberations at last night's meeting.
"A lot of good points were made and a good discussion was had, so it wasn't a complete loss," he said.
Moncrief agreed that the proposal sparked a healthy and productive debate among Committee members.
"At least we're talking about honor issues," he said. "That's always a good thing."
Read More
Who is Interim President Paul G. Mahoney?
By Brandon Kile | 5 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.”
