Since successful student activism is so rare at this University, I get stirred by even the slightest rumblings of discontent, no matter how ineffectual or inchoate they may be. So when verbal outrage about fourth-year student Jason Smith’s honor trial crystallized into more concrete forms of protest, I immediately started to track down those responsible for this. What began as an exercise in intellectual curiosity soon became a case study of student activism at the University. And, after intense study, I’ve concluded that the group, now known as “Justice for Jason Smith”, has displayed great strategic vision and prudence in its campaign thus far.
Previous news stories on Smith’s high-profile trial, which resulted in his expulsion for lying in a pass/fail, one-credit course, had either left out the group “Justice for Jason Smith” or mentioned it without bothering to interview its leaders. As a result, thin analyses often dismissed it as a ragtag group bent on launching ad hominem attacks against the third-year student who initiated the case, Mary Siegel.
To a certain extent, this criticism is valid. Just days after Smith’s trial on March 29, the organization’s Facebook group, called “Remove Mary Siegel from Honor”, was launched. It detailed a range of ad hominem attacks against Siegel, including the irrelevant and obscure fact that her sorority sister had allegedly stolen an i-Pod. The group even linked itself to a petition to remove her from the Honor Committee, which regurgitated similar personal assaults. On the surface, this all seems too personal. Shouldn’t they be directing their anger at the system, rather than the Mary Siegels that are the product of it?
But put yourself in the group’s shoes. The first short-term aim of any activist group is to shore up its base of supporters and find dedicated underlings to further its cause. Tainting the image of the case initiator and demonizing her as a poster child for the vices of single sanction is one effective way of doing so. It puts a vivid face on a systemic problem in a way that another honor reform campaign could not. After all, just weeks after the single sanction referendum suffered a dismal failure, would students really be enthusiastic about hopping into the bandwagon of another honor reform effort so quickly? I think not.
Besides, some of the initiatives are actually smarter than people give them credit for. The petition to remove Siegel from the Committee, for instance, is not merely an exercise in venting frustration. If 10 percent of the student body signs on to the petition, it will initiate a referendum on Siegel’s potential removal. Even if the referendum does not end up passing (it probably won’t since only 300 students have signed it), the group’s leaders, Michael Hamilton, Eric Huang and Joe Liem, explained to me that having this support before Smith’s appeal may help boost his case. That seems pretty smart and constructive to me. Hence, while we may find some of ‘Justice for Jason Smith’s’ actions morally questionable, there is little question that they are strategically shrewd.
Shrewder still was the group’s transition from a group initially directed at Siegel to one now dedicated to justice for Smith and honor reform. After a makeover, the Facebook group is now called “Justice for Jason Smith”. The picture of Siegel has been replaced by a scale representing justice, and most of the personal attacks against her have vanished. The petition now starts off with “this is not an attack on Mary Siegel” before delving into substantive reasons why she should be removed (the i-Pod reference has been dropped). There is even a “clarification of group position” section that waxes eloquently about balancing the Smith case and longer-term honor reform.
The transition was groundbreaking because it illustrated the group understood that Siegel was just part of the system. As group leader Michael Hamilton told me, “The honor system is sick. We realize that Mary Siegel is only a symptom of the virus.” And despite his frustrations, Smith himself understands that the focus on his case needs to be paired with calls for honor reform. “What happened to me could have happened to anyone, and we need to make sure this injustice doesn’t happen again,” Smith said in an interview.
This is only the beginning. Hamilton says the group is trying to collaborate with other reform groups at the University to change the honor system. That’s pretty wise. The momentum from such a high profile case will help galvanize waning efforts at repealing the single sanction. And partnerships between groups with overlapping agendas will help build support instead of fracturing or dispersing it. The group’s aim to foster media attention is also a good idea. When a student was expelled from the Semester at Sea program last year and left stranded in Greece, the Washington Post picked up the story. This case isn’t nearly as spectacular, but with the right packaging, the frenzied media may gobble it up.
All this may turn out to be for naught. Smith’s appeal will probably bite the dust, and single sanction reform will likely continue to gather dust. But at a University notorious for its lackluster activism, “Justice for Jason Smith” deserves credit for at least trying to mount a strategic campaign toward these goals. To dismiss it just another misconceived endeavor would do it a great injustice.
Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 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.
