I write to express my profound disappointment with the Honor Committee’s decision to disregard the plain text of the recently passed Bellamy Amendment in drafting its bylaws regarding the new informed retraction procedure.
The Bellamy legislation, which was approved by more than 64 percent of the University students who voted in student elections, added 80 unequivocal words to the Honor Committee constitution:
“A student who has been reported for an honor violation shall have the right, within one week of being informed of the report by the Honor Committee, to file an Informed Retraction admitting guilt and waiving all other rights guaranteed under this constitution. A student filing an Informed Retraction shall be excluded for two full semesters from student status, and shall subsequently be permitted to return to the University, provided that the student has not previously filed an Informed Retraction (emphasis added).”
This terse legislation does not provide much detail, and leaves a great deal of discretion to the Honor Committee to structure the administration of informed retraction. However, its repeated use of the word shall makes one point absolutely clear — informed retraction is available to any given student as of right, and the Honor Committee has no discretion to withhold informed retraction to one who has filed for it within one week of receiving notice of pending honor charges.
Unfortunately, the Honor Committee has apparently determined that it need not comply with its own governing constitution in framing the bylaws governing informed retraction. Honor Bylaw III (B)(3), as of March 3, 2013, states that “[t]he Vice Chairs [for Investigations and Trials] may accept or reject any IR submission,” and further provides that “[t]he decision of the Vice Chairs is final.” This language clearly contradicts the plain meaning of the Bellamy Amendment — language which, it bears repeating, is now enshrined in the Honor Committee’s constitution. Constitutions trump bylaws.
The question of whether it was wise to not give the Honor Committee discretion to withhold informed retraction from a student who has committed a particularly egregious offense is a political one — one that was answered, at least in the short term, in the last election. Now, the question is one of law — specifically, whether the Honor Committee is going to follow the laws which give the Committee its authority and legitimacy. If the Committee thinks that the Bellamy Amendment should be amended further, the appropriate means of doing so is placing another referendum before the student body next election, not to refuse to follow its governing documents. To do otherwise is to place the Honor Committee above the rule of law and the governance of the student body.
If Honor Committee Chair Evan Behrle is serious about restoring the student body’s faith in honor, he will address these serious concerns about the legality of the Committee’s bylaws at this Thursday’s 4:30 p.m. town hall at University Chapel. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that he will, since questions at this “town hall” will be restricted to those provided beforehand by pre-registered guests, and pre-selected by the event coordinators, thus ensuring that tough questions need not be answered. However, I remain hopeful that Mr. Behrle will make good on the words of his recent University-wide email, and reaffirm the principle that “[s]tudent self-governance has always been and will always be the foundation of our Community of Trust.”
Ron Fisher is a second-year Law student.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
Honor Committee brainstorms sanction diversification, considers future steps for AI
By Lexie Stadler | 5 days agoHancock and Carson Breus, vice chair for sanctions and third-year Commerce student, said they are collaborating to explore fresh sanctioning avenues.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
