"Act, intent and triviality," may soon make way for "act, knowledge and significance." The Honor Committee proposed changes to the intent and triviality clauses - two of the three criteria that constitute an honor offense - of its constitution at its Dec. 5 meeting. Because changes to the Committee's constitution require a University-wide referendum, students will have the opportunity to vote on the proposals during next month's elections.
These changes would not substantively affect how the honor code is administered, but rather are intended to make the criteria for guilt clearer for students. Such amendments are well-suited for a University-wide vote. If students think the changes make sense and better suit what constitutes an honor offense, the measures should pass, helping the system more closely match the community's ideals and its interpretation of a "community of trust." What the amendments seem to stop short of, however, is addressing in earnest the complexities that can arise in determining if a student willfully and deliberately violated the honor code.
Currently, the intent clause reads, "No student shall be found to have committed an honor violation unless ... the evidence against him supports, beyond a reasonable doubt, an accusation of an intentional act of lying, cheating, or stealing." The changes would eliminate the word "intent" and adjust the definition accordingly: "No student shall be found to have committed an honor violation unless ... evidence against him supports, beyond a reasonable doubt, an accusation of an act of lying, cheating, or stealing that he knew or a reasonable University of Virginia student should have known might constitute an Honor Offense."
"We are hoping that these changes help those involved in cases as well as our jurors to understand and interpret the definitions better in future cases," Vice Chair for Trials Whitney Johnson said. The election results will determine whether students believe the changes more accurately describe the criteria for an honor offense.\nBut the proposed amendments appear to leave room still for significant inconsistency among trials, particularly in cases involving plagiarism. Some of the ambiguities that can arise with the intent clause as it reads now, for example, likely would require more explanation in the Committee's constitution or the elimination of certain bylaws. Committee Chair Charles Harris wrote via e-mail that these definitions would be subject to the interpretation of "finders of fact" at each stage of the honor process: the investigative panel during the investigation stage and jury members during the trial. That is certainly the correct sentiment, but a more careful and thorough definition of these criteria may assist panelists and jurors in coming to fair conclusions.
In an editorial
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 12 hours agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 17 hours agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
PARTING SHOT: Risk and reward
By Charlie Healy | YesterdayThe college newspaper was nowhere on my radar, and I had no previous experience with journalism.
