It is a little unclear from the article on the honor referendum (“Honor Committee validates proposal for spring elections, “2/9/2009), however, it seems from the article that the main debate the Honor Committee has is that the language is unclear. If this is the case how could you possibly allow a constituency to vote on it? If this is a referendum that could take away the single sanction, a long lasting tradition at the University, shouldn’t it contain language that people consistently understand to have one meaning? Would we allow our state legislature to enact laws that aren’t consistently comprehensible to all voters? There are significant legal principles which specifically protect voters from voting on things where the language is uncertain. To simply let people “figure it out” is ridiculous, particularly when dealing with something which deals with potential expulsion of individuals from an institution of higher education.
Read More
A statement from 191 concerned faculty to the new Board of Visitors
By Concerned Faculty | February 20, 2026Critical questions of process regarding the appointment of Beardsley remain unanswered.
A statement from 201 concerned faculty about U.Va. President Beardsley’s appointment
By Concerned Faculty | January 16, 2026By acting in bad faith, the Board has flouted its fiduciary duties to the University and has violated its own bylaws calling on it to protect the University from outside interference.
LETTER: When everything is labeled hazing, nothing is
By Scott Gleason | January 4, 2026Worse still, over-policing benign practices risks driving genuinely harmful behavior underground.
