The Honor Committee voted unanimously Nov. 9 to pass a bylaw change that further specifies the time frame for when students can express admission of guilt during the Honor sanctioning process and retain expulsion protection.
The change shifts the admission-of-guilt deadline to before the pre-hearing conference and moves the deadline for receiving expulsion protection by expressly admitting guilt to before the investigative panel.
The change better aligns students' ability to express admission of guilt with other major motions an accused student can take in the sanctioning process. The change to the bylaws also adds more specificity on how to ensure what students admit guilt to also aligns with what they are accused of.
Thomas Ackleson, Committee chair and fourth-year Engineering student, said that this change to the bylaws is relatively minor in comparison to some of the alterations that have been made to the bylaws by the Committee both this term and in the previous term.
“We wanted to make a policy that explained in detail how [expression of guilt] actually works, and assign some timelines just to provide clarity to a student potentially in this situation,” Ackleson said. “It really just sort of specifies and puts in writing what would probably be done in practice.”
Throughout several meetings this semester, the Committee considered a bylaw change that would move up the deadline for students to admit guilt. Under the proposed change, students would need to admit guilt before the Pre-Hearing Conference, rather than right before the hearing. This shifts the deadline approximately 14 days earlier than it is now.
The proposal also affects an accused student’s eligibility for expulsion protection. To receive this protection, students would now need to admit guilt before the Investigative Panel, which usually meets 1–2 weeks before the Pre-Hearing Conference.
The pre-hearing conference is held 14 days prior to a student's hearing date, which primarily serves to go over the witness, scope, and evidence of the accused Honor violation. During the pre-hearing conference, there are certain motions that students are permitted to make. These include arguing that the case should be dismissed, requesting joint-acusations be heard separately, or, in the case of a student with multiple alleged violations, requesting each accusation be heard separately.
Seamus Oliver, chair of the Policies and Procedures Subcommittee and fourth-year College representative, stated that the reason this change has been proposed is to align it more with other actions students can take when accused of an Honor violation, many of which are steps taken in the pre-hearing conference.
“So the thought was, expressly admitting guilt is [something the] student is claiming and it is significant, and shakes up the case pretty significantly, so we should align it with [the other major motions during the] pre-hearing conference as well,” Oliver said.
Oliver also said that there had been some debate amongst the Committee as to when students should be able to receive expulsion protection and under which circumstances it should be permitted. He explained that currently, expulsion protection is generally based on the Informed Retraction procedures, which allow students to admit guilt at the start of sanctioning procedures and avoid permanent sanctions, such as expulsion, permanent transcript notation, or anything else the panel of sanctions may assign as a sanction that is considered permanent.
The express admission of guilt procedure, however, is a completely separate action that students can take that offers expulsion protection to students, but does not offer protection from any other permanent sanctions, such as permanent transcript notation.
Before the multi‑sanction system was introduced in 2023, the Committee leaned almost exclusively on exclusionary punishments. With the new system in place, however, most cases are now addressed with a range of sanctions that focus on proportionality, rehabilitation, and reintegration into the University Honor community. Some of the new sanctions include restorative ethics seminars, written reflections, and temporary leaves of absence.
Oliver added that he and other Committee members feel the old bylaws made the express admission of guilt process somewhat devalue the IR process.
“I know representatives on the Committee and members of [The Policies and Procedures Subcommittee] express the concern that if, up until the minute the hearing starts, you can expressly admit guilt and have expulsion protection, that cheapens the [Informed Retraction] a little bit, and I'm partial to that argument,” Oliver said.
Oliver also shared that it is a rare occurrence for students to express admission of guilt. He shared that last term, however, a student did express admission of guilt, which caused confusion with the student’s hearing concerning what they had admitted, whether it aligned with the reported violation and raised a series of broad questions.
Due to this confusion, the Committee decided it was worthwhile to revisit the express admission of guilt procedures and the timeline of this section of the bylaws to better align it with the major motions of the proceedings.
Now that the bylaw amendment has been approved by the Committee, it will now be reviewed by University counsel to ensure that it abides by civil rights and due process requirements. Following this review, if approved, it will be adopted into the bylaws, and all new honor cases moving forward will be reviewed under the new bylaws. Students currently going through the sanctioning procedures will have the choice to have their case heard under the old bylaws or under the new ones.
“If a student gets reported on Saturday, and the bylaws get passed and approved by counsel on Sunday, the student's entire case will be held under the current set of bylaws, rather than the new ones, with the provision that if they so desire, they can request to have their case heard under the newest set of bylaws,” Oliver said.
Ackleson shared that he thinks students who are about to enter an Honor hearing or would like to avoid an Honor hearing because they know they are guilty should express admission of guilt because it protects them from expulsion.
“In exchange for doing the honorable thing, the Committee is not going to consider expulsion when that's a potential sanction in a guilty hearing,” Ackleson said…”It's a second chance to realize that the best thing to do is to admit guilt and then move on and begin [the] process of restoring the community of trust and taking accountability for what [you’ve] done. “
The Committee will be meeting again Sunday. Their meetings are open to the public and can be attended weekly at 7 p.m. in Newcomb Hall 480. Meetings can also be attended virtually from their website.
Read More
The Cavalier Daily elects editors for its 137th term
By Nina Broderick | 21 hours agoThe Cavalier Daily elected editors for its upcoming 137th term Saturday, and in a contested election, chose third-year College student Leigh Bailey to serve as the paper’s next editor-in-chief.
Student Council passes safety resolution responding to Nov. 3 false shooter report
By Jaylynn Perez | YesterdayIn the weeks following the Nov. 3 false shooter report incident, the Student Council circulated a student survey to gather feedback on how the University handled the false report.
U.Va.’s Sloane Lab explores how AI is used in the hiring process
By Lidia Zur Muhlen | 2 days agoReleased Nov. 6, the index is the result of nearly 5 years of research, including an analysis of 100 widely used recruitment AI tools and insights from 100 interviews with recruiters.
