I was disappointed by the Managing Board’s lead editorial endorsing the Honor Committee’s proposal (“An ideal worth restoring,” Feb. 19). The supporters of the honor proposal are absolutely correct that the honor system is in need of reform, and the student body needs to be reengaged, but the two proposed changes are not the correct path. Rather than ameliorating the situation, the Restore the Ideal Act will harm the student self-governance tradition of honor. There are far too many aspects of the honor proposals to debate in a single op-ed, but proponents have written several arguments in The Cavalier Daily that merit a response.
Luke Brennan brings up a strong point when he argues that “to believe that random student juries are reaching decisions that we all agree with is simply wrong” (“Cultivating trust,” Feb. 18). In the two honor trials he witnessed, Mr. Brennan felt the panels were unengaged, incoherent and reached the wrong verdicts. But in another piece of anecdotal evidence, second-year Law student Frank Bellamy, writing back in December, explained that in the trial he attended, the jurors were “attentive and active in questioning” (“Five angry men,” Dec. 5). It is far from conclusive what the quality of random student juries are.
More importantly, we approach honor trials as black-and-white presentations. They are not. We tend to think of these trials as formulaic proceedings. The Honor Committee’s bylaws give this impression in explaining the three criteria for an honor offense-. That the accused “acted” and “acted with knowledge” are straightforward, but there is no algorithm or line in the sand to determine significance.
When proponents decry the lack of consistency, they mistakenly assume that there is some singular student interpretation of the criteria — that as a student body we would somehow reach the same conclusions. There is no such unanimous understanding and random student juries reflect that. Law is not meant to guarantee a consistency of results; it is meant to guarantee a consistency in the application of due process.
The Managing Board, arguing from another angle, writes that the honor proposal is “not without its flaws. But it is a bold attempt to fix a system that no longer does its job. The choice is one between paralysis and action.” The choice presented seems simple, but the solution endorsed is facile. I can assure readers that we who oppose the proposal are not opposing it purely because we find delight in being recalcitrant or intransigent. To say that voting “no” means supporting the existing system is not accurate. Voting “no” allows the student body another chance at crafting a real solution. Though too late for this election, students outside of honor should excogitate and propose alternative reforms, publicize them and debate them openly.
Regardless, the proposed solution does more harm than good. If there is significant mistrust, if belief in the community of trust is eroding, or if there is a severe disengagement, the answer to these challenges is not to remove a crucial aspect of non-Honor Committee student participation. Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” There is a burden upon the Honor Committee to edify jurors of their responsibilities and, when they appear to be lacking, to find the defect in the preparation and correct it. It makes no sense to bemoan the lack of engagement from the student body and then propose the removal of that very engagement as a solution.
I do not doubt that the Honor Committee has worked sedulously to try to reform a broken system. The proposal, however, is one step forward and two steps back. In the end, there is one question that I must ask the Honor Committee, especially the representatives currently running: If the student body is unqualified and too disengaged to serve as juries for our fellow students, what makes us qualified and engaged sufficiently to decide the officers who should serve that duty?
George Wang is a fourth-year College student and a former Opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 22 hours 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 | 3 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.
