STUDENT self-governance is built on the idea of the student body judging others accused of an offense. However, the Honor Committee is currently debating a proposal that would create a separate three-person panel of Honor Committee members to vote on the seriousness clause for an honor offense.
Currently, an eight- to 12-member jury votes if the accused are guilty on act, intent and seriousness. By taking power away from the jury, the Honor Committee would be infringing on students' self-governance by removing power from the student body and placing it in the hands of Honor Committee members. By doing so, the Honor Committee would be given too much power in an accused student's future.
By creating a three-member panel, the Honor Committee proposal states its goal is to "avoid disparate interpretations" which "may cause the Seriousness Clause to be applied inconsistently, depending upon the interpretation of a particular jury panel." The language of the proposal ignores the basic facts of the current situation. The proposal intends to establish consistency, but the Honor Committee does not work on any system of precedent. Therefore, inconsistency must be expected. "Disparate interpretations" will always be an issue when a random jury is created. Varying interpretations build a foundation for a fair and impartial jury.
The timing of this proposal comes after the first open honor trial in three years occurred last semester. In that trial, the two students were acquitted. Nine out of 10 jurors voted guilty on act and intent, while a majority voted innocent on seriousness. Because of the single sanction policy at the University, the two students were exonerated without any repercussions, besides the publicity they chose to accept by making the trial open. Many students expressed outrage that two students, guilty of act and intent, suffered no consequences. However, David Hobbs, chair of the Honor Committee, said the new proposal would represent an "effort to improve consistency across the board, not just a knee-jerk reaction."
On its Web site, the Honor Committee defines whether an act is guilty on seriousness by asking, "Would open toleration of such an act impair the community of trust sufficiently enough to warrant permanent dismissal from the University?" To most students (and potential jurors), impairing the community of trust does not play into a definition of seriousness. For this reason, the Honor Committee feels obligated to judge seriousness itself. However, this alternative may be the worst possible way to address the problem of understanding the Honor Committee's view of seriousness.
A fluctuating three-member panel of Honor Committee members represents a conflict of interest. Honor Committee members come into contact with an abundance of cases and may interpret things differently than the average student. For example, human nature tends to try to generalize or stereotype scenarios and situations, and by no real fault of their own, Honor Committee members are more likely to judge a case with a bias if it at all resembles a previous case they may have been judged previously. However, randomly selected students would have no prior experience in judging a case and have no ability to generalize, and thusform a bias towards, a unique case.
Although randomly selected jurors would still hold the power to judge act and intent, they would lose the ability to judge seriousness. Because only a simple majority is needed for a guilty ruling, the seriousness vote holds the most power -- each vote swells in importance. By placing the power in the hands of just three individuals, the Honor Committee concentrates too great a power and a privilege in too small a group. Only two people would have to believe the potential offense to be guilty on seriousness as opposed to at least five to seven individuals in the present system.
In order to improve consistency, the Honor Committee should consider judging on precedent. With clear examples of what defines guilty on the grounds of seriousness, jurors would improve in using the Honor Committee's definition. Though a potential offense may not fulfill a juror's traditional view of seriousness, examples of incidents that were and were not considered guilty of seriousness using the Honor Committee's definition could change their viewpoint. Examples of past decisions would not infringe on privacy of the individuals involved; all names and dates could easily be removed from these cases. Instead, the Honor Committee would go one step forward in emulating our own national system of law.
The Honor Committee's proposal requires careful thought. Though it would make jurors' jobs easier by delegating responsibility to Honor Committee members, the new proposal places biases in the judging process. In the spirit of self-governance, the Honor Committee must strike this proposal down to preserve the foundation of honor the University was built upon.
Rajesh Jain's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 2 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
