I applaud Robert Baldwin’s critique of the Jason Smith honor trial that appeared yesterday (“In defense of Jason Smith,” 4/6/2009). Specifically his point about non-triviality lacking precedent sheds light on the recently failed referendum to make the honor system a multi-tiered system and how Smith could have benefited from such a system. Similar to the way in which the Honor Committee instituted a slanderous, dishonest campaign to ensure the failure of the referendum this spring, now the Committee has committed another unjust act against our community in the form of the precedence Smith’s case represents: the potential for a primary witness in an honor trial to also be an officer in the committee itself. We must ask ourselves as members of the community of trust just how many injustices we can tolerate from the Committee. If we are unable to change honor through the democratic process due to the Committee’s demonstrated skill at deceiving our community then we must ask if it is necessary to change the terms of its authority through other means.
Read More
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.
LETTER: An alumnus and parent’s perspective on U.Va.’s presidential search process
By Tom Neale | December 15, 2025The critiques of Mahoney and the Board of Visitors are egregious double standards that I believe are motivated by political differences with Mahoney and the Board.
