THE ABILITY to participate in an honest, respectful debate is an important skill for a person to have if that person is going to live and participate in a democratic or republican government. That is why it was so disappointing to see some of the online responses to the recent articles concerning what letter writer Reed Arnold has called "the University Judiciary Committee/Honor Committee/Cavalier Daily debacle."
It is hard to imagine that anyone reading The Cavalier Daily does not know the story, but here is the short version. The managing board wrote an editorial ("Taking action," Sept. 12) that said editors had discovered plagiarism, dismissed the writer responsible for those articles and reported the incident to the Honor Committee. That led Honor Committee Chair Ann Marie McKenzie to file UJC charges against all five members of the managing board. Charges were dropped against four managing board members. A little more than a month after the editorial was published, a UJC trial panel decided the case was outside of its jurisdiction, and therefore it could not rule on the charges against Cavalier Daily Editor-in-Chief Jason Ally.
Throughout the process and beyond - with a short break to make sure the paper was on firm legal ground - The Cavalier Daily has published news stories, columns, editorials and letters to the editor about the case and its ramifications.
Online comments have berated McKenzie for filing the charges; the UJC for taking the case; and The Cavalier Daily for making such a big deal out of it. Some have used the episode to attack student self-governance. Others have said this shows how well self-governance works.
Some comments have been snide, cynical and grammatically challenged. "Billy" posted, in response to the managing board's Oct. 21 lead editorial, "Freeing the press": "The paper does not need to be held accountable, they can do as they please. Whatever you say. Typical journalists."
The paper's argument is not that it should not be held accountable. Its argument is that it should not be held accountable by the UJC. There are state and federal courts that deal with media cases. They can take care of The Cavalier Daily, as they do other independent newspapers.
Some people have interpreted that as a "double jeopardy" argument: The Cavalier Daily can be held accountable by the courts, so subjecting the paper to UJC trials, too, would violate the Constitutional prohibition against trying someone twice for the same offence. But that is not the managing board's argument. The managing board seems to be saying that the UJC does not have the right or the power to regulate a newspaper. Arguments about The Cavalier Daily's actions are better held on the paper's pages, its website and - if necessary - in the courts.
None of the comments published or posted so far have been more disappointing than what appeared online after the Oct. 21 editorial.
Someone writing as "process story" posted, "SNORE!"
If self-governance is going to work - at the University or outside of it - the people allegedly doing the governing need to be more interested in the process than that. "The University Judiciary Committee/Honor Committee/Cavalier Daily debacle" may be over, mostly, but it left a lot of issues unresolved.
The UJC eventually arrived at the right point in Ally's case, but only partially. And the judicial process took a strange path to get there. The UJC executive committee seemed to ignore its constitution and the University's history by not declaring immediately that The Cavalier Daily is beyond the body's authority.
Students should be concerned about that.
The trial panel that eventually decided it did not have jurisdiction did so after listening to arguments about the facts of the case, rather than those pertaining to whether the UJC had jurisdiction. It is sort of like having a soccer match to decide who has the best baseball team.
Students should be concerned about that.
The Cavalier Daily's managing board has consistently argued that this is, at least in part, a free press issue. The UJC was created by the University, which is a subdivision of Virginia, and Virginia cannot tell newspapers what they can and cannot print. "Congress shall make no law," and all that.
Besides, though The Cavalier Daily is run by University students, it is not strictly a University organization. The managing board says the paper is "financially and editorially independent of the University and operates as a non-profit corporation that is not bound by University policies."
Others have argued that joining The Cavalier Daily cannot exempt students from the rules other University students have to obey.
Students should be concerned about that.
At its heart, this brouhaha is not between The Cavalier Daily and the UJC. It is not between the Honor Committee and The Cavalier Daily. It is among competing principles.
What is more important, press freedom or judicial power? Personal privacy or public accountability?
Students - citizens - should be concerned about that.
Tim Thornton is the ombudsman for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | 22 hours agoAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
KURTZWEIL: Little sympathy for LittleJohn’s closure
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoWith a new class of students arriving in August, Corner restaurants will face another test of their price discrimination and thus need to learn LittleJohn’s lesson quickly.
A statement by 401 concerned faculty regarding the crisis of President Ryan’s forced resignation
By Concerned Faculty | 6 days agoWe call on the Board to collaborate closely with faculty in appointing an Interim President to guide the university through this perilous time.
