Student sponsors of the fall ballot referendum to add a discrimination standard to the University Judiciary Committee's Standards of Conduct decided last night to attempt to pull the referendum because of constitutional concerns in regard to freedom of speech.
The University Board of Elections decided late last night to reject the referendum due to a technicality, however, making the attempt to withdraw it a moot point.
The proposed referendum called for the creation of a 13th Standard of Conduct that would limit the sanctioning of a student found guilty of an act of unconstitutional discrimination to suspension or expulsion.
According to referendum co-author and Council Engineering School Rep. Pavan Gupta, the possibility of litigation against the University prompted the attempt to withdraw the referendum.
"At this point the conclusion we made is that pushing this forward will do more harm than good," Gupta said.
According to UBE Chair Sara Anderson the UBE ruled last night that this referendum did not have the required 900 signatures to be placed on the ballot in the first place, dismissing the referendum on a technicality.
"The issue was that the text of the referendum had to be attached to the signature sheets, and it was only attached to two of the sheets, making only a handful of the signatures valid," Anderson said.
The removal of this referendum in no way ends its authors' commitment to this movement, Gupta said.
"We're looking for some tangible change," Gupta said. "We still wholeheartedly believe the ideals are correct."
Both Pavan and referendum co-author Rami Samo said they believe an additional Standard of Conduct would not have a detrimental effect on the procedure of the UJC, which has separate trials to determine guilt and the appropriate sanction.
"The problem here is that some people believe our change will cause procedural problems with the UJC, this means there could possibly be procedural problems already," Samo said.
According to Samo, a referendum representing this movement will be on the spring ballot in a modified form.
"We're going to redraft it and hopefully eliminate all such problems," Samo said.
They intend to tighten and refine the language of the referendum to address the constitutional concerns associated with such a Standard of Conduct, Ramo said.
"At the end of the day, if there's even the remotest debate about the possibility of litigation against the University, it's not worth it," Gupta said.
Read More
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 9 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.”
