This past week was marked by a disturbing level of personal attacks against Mary Siegel, the Honor Committee’s vice chair for investigations, for her role in the open honor trial of Jason Smith. More than 250 students signed an online petition for her removal from the Committee. More than 450 joined a Facebook group with the same aim. Though the anger of the student body about the result of the trial may be justified, the petition and the Facebook group picked the wrong target. Fortunately, the administrators of the Facebook group have taken a step in the right direction by toning down their attacks and changing the group name from “Remove Mary Siegel” to “Justice for Jason Smith.” Others who take issue with the recent verdict would also do well to remember that it was a product of the entire honor system, not any one individual.
By all accounts, Siegel did exactly what she was supposed to do under the current system. She saw an instance of lying at the University and reported it. Regardless of her affiliation with the Committee, that is clearly the right of any student here. Her report went to the Investigative Panel, which decided it was more likely than not that an honor offense occurred. The case then went to trial and a student jury deliberated for four hours until it decided that the accused student was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The single sanction was applied, and the guilty student’s enrollment was discontinued.
We can no more blame Siegel for the result than investigators, Investigative Panel members, student jury members or counsels involved in the trial. Even those unhappy about the verdict — for all their complaints about Siegel’s inside connections — acknowledged the fairness of the accused student’s counsel during the trial. If anything, the publicity associated with an open trial ensured that the Committee was more careful than usual about its procedures. Within the system that we, the students, have put in place, Siegel acted appropriately.
Setting aside the ad hominem attacks against Siegel, students have voiced legitimate concerns about the verdict. Some have argued that a jury composed disproportionately of first- and second-year students may have held an idyllic view of the honor system without considering its negative repercussions. Others believe “making excuses” is not the same as telling a bald-faced lie. There may even be some who question if anything done during a one-credit pass-fail seminar during a student’s fourth year really merits expulsion. And even though the trial’s open nature made some information more readily available, some students also have expressed dismay about the system’s general lack of transparency.
Those students opposed to the verdict do have several avenues more appropriate than attacking Siegel for addressing their concerns against the trial. If they believe that the jury panel was not appropriately composed, they can push for new bylaws mandating a minimum number of jury members from an accused student’s year on the jury. If they believe that Siegel’s status within the Committee affected the verdict, they can argue for a more stringent code of ethics. If they have a problem with the application of triviality or the single sanction, they can propose a referendum to address such issues on next year’s ballot.
Whichever path they choose, those upset with the trial should not blame the messenger. If they truly believe the outcome was unfair, they should set their sights much higher.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
