With the issue of jurisdictional overlap between the Honor and University Judiciary Committees becoming a more pressing concern lately, the chairs of both committees said their respective bodies have the constitutional right to hear cases of stealing at the University, yet will work together to create a uniform system for acts of stealing.
Honor Committee Chair David Hobbs and Judiciary Committee Chair Tim Ormsby both said they recognize that the overlap of jurisdiction is an issue that needs to be addressed.
"It's a potential problem in that we don't want a system that provides the possibility of an initiator bias between Honor and UJC," Hobbs said. "I think the biggest problem is making sure that there is universal treatment for acts of stealing."
The Honor Committee was founded to hear cases of lying, cheating and stealing at the University. The Judiciary Committee was designed to address violations of its twelve Standards of Conduct but has no jurisdiction over the Honor Committee. The Judiciary Committee, however, has jurisdiction over all violations of state, federal or local law at the University, with stealing being one of those violations.
"Our constitution prohibits us from having jurisdiction over the Honor Committee," Ormsby said. "That doesn't prohibit us from hearing violations of the honor code."
This overlapping jurisdiction can lead to a conflicting decision for people wishing to report a case of stealing, Ormbsy said.
"Whether they file with Honor or UJC is up to the person who is bringing the case," Ormsby said. "Nothing prohibits them from bringing it to both."
Once a student reports a case to either body, the case is pursued independently by that body, and confidentiality prevents collusion between the Honor and Judiciary Committees in almost all situations, Hobbs said.
When a case of stealing is reported to the Honor Committee, the accused student could be expelled if found guilty, Hobbs said.
"If a stealing case passes by a four-fifths majority on act and intent and majority on seriousness, the student will be found guilty," Hobbs said.
If the case is reported to the Judiciary Committee, the convicted student could receive a sanction ranging from oral admonition to expulsion.
"In any case of stealing, if the student is found guilty, the sanction is up to the trial panel," Ormsby said.
The potential difference in sanctioning calls into question the motives of case initiators, Hobbs said.
"I think a lot of that might just be education," Hobbs said. "I do not think initiators bring cases to the UJC as an active rejection of the honor system."
In addition, bringing a case to the UJC rather than the Honor Committee would not ensure a more lenient sanction, Ormsby added.
"If a complainant sought to bring charges of stealing to the UJC in order to circumvent the single sanction or Honor, there's no guarantee the UJC would not also return a sanction of expulsion," Ormsby said.
Standardizing the sanctions could require a change to the procedure, constitution or by-laws of the Honor Committee or the UJC, Ormsby said. Any amendment to the constitutions of the Judiciary Committee or the Honor Committee would require ratification by the student body.
"In that case it's a question the students would have to answer," Ormsby said.
Ormsby said he and Hobbs plan to meet to discuss the issue before the end of the semester.
"This is definitely something I feel is worth looking into, especially because it affects students," Ormsby said.
Read More
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 5 hours agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
Two senior U.Va. Health leaders quietly take new jobs without formal announcement
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayKibbe’s departure marks the end of an ongoing battle between U.Va. Health employees and their senior leadership.
Letter from 12 deans to Board of Visitors goes unanswered for almost two weeks
By Naima Sawaya | YesterdayAt the time of publication, the academic deans had received no response from the Board regarding their offer to meet with the Board “as soon as possible.”
