In an effort to prevent students from potentially submitting a dishonorable conscientious retraction, an ad hoc committee has recently been appointed to review the conscientious retraction policy, Honor Committee Chair Carey Mignerey said.
"The Committee remains committed to the concept and philosophy of a conscientious retraction, and at the same time we're looking to ensure that the system is not exploited but rather helps maintain our community of trust," Mignerey said.
The conscientious retraction allows a student who has violated the honor code to remain in the community of trust by coming forth on his own will, admitting the act and making amends for it, according to ad hoc committee member David Hobbs.
In order for the conscientious retraction to be valid, the bylaw states that it must be submitted "before the student has reason to believe that the relevant act has come under suspicion by anyone."
Hobbs said the creation of the ad hoc committee was not spurred by recent abuse of the system but rather was a preemptive measure to ensure that potential exploitation does not occur in the future.
"It isn't a major problem right now," he said. "It is a slight problem we want to consider before it becomes a major problem. We would rather plan it out before we face something of that nature."
Under the committee's current system of notification, a student is not informed that a case has been initiated against him or her until a week after a charge is filed. This gives the committee time to interview potential witnesses and affords the accused student the opportunity to file a conscientious retraction, Mignerey said. However, the window of opportunity may allow the student to suspect or discover that a case has been initiated, he added.
"One of the reasons we are prompted to do this is we've had a few cases in the past where initiators have been frustrated with our notification policy because it provides the opportunity to file a conscientious retraction in bad faith," he said. "However, it's difficult to discern whether the CR was valid or invalid."
Mignerey said there are four options the ad hoc committee is exploring in determining the fate of the conscientious retraction policy.
The first is to leave the conscientious retraction and its bylaws the same.
The second is to change the notification policy by alerting students immediately upon initiation.
The third option is to change the bylaws to tighten the definition of suspicion.
Finally, the last option is to set an expiration date for filing a conscientious retraction, which would create a window of time for the conscientious retraction to be filed after the act was committed.
"Every one [of the options] would be a very minor adjustment that would have significant policy implications for the committee," Mignerey said.
Read More
U.Va. Faculty Senate overwhelmingly adopts a no confidence vote in Board of Visitors
By Xander Tilock | Yesterday"The Faculty Senate expresses no confidence in the Board of Visitors for not protecting the University and its president from outside interference," the resolution read.
Faculty Senate Executives hear from Rector Sheridan and Vice Rector Wilkinson
By Xander Tilock and Grace Traxler | 2 days agoRectors were in attendance for part of Wednesday’s emergency meeting and were asked about the interim president selection process.
Student leaders weigh the future of self-governance after Ryan's departure
By Brendon Bordwine | 3 days agoThe University has a historical tradition of student self-governance, which allows students to take part in decision-making processes.
