The University Judiciary Committee — a student-run judiciary body that investigates and adjudicates cases involving the 12 Standards of Conduct — passed several amendments to its bylaws following University Counsel approval Sept. 30. According to Zach Davidson, UJC chair and fourth-year College student, the UJC voted internally to pass the new amendments Sept. 13, and UJC intends to publish the bylaws to its website Oct. 12.
Major provisions of the new amendments include the ability for the Executive Committee to vote to dismiss complaints and the complete replacement of Article VII — the article responsible for alternative trial pathways. The newly amended bylaws will allow students accused of a Standards of Conduct violation to admit guilt to the accusations and receive the option for an expedited hearing process and protection from permanent sanctions such as expulsion, suspension or permanent transcript notation.
According to Davidson, the new amendments make up the largest structural change to UJC bylaws in recent years.
Davidson said that the main driver for the recent bylaw amendments was because of a recent influx of cases that prompted UJC to consider ways to make its process more efficient. Davidson said that the UJC is currently experiencing the highest volume of cases they have had since the COVID-19 pandemic — an increase in volume he attributes to enhanced trust in the UJC from the University community.
Increased case volume is also an issue faced by the Honor Committee. Genny Freed, Honor Committee chair and fourth-year College student, cited it as a problem she hopes to address during her term by restructuring executive committee and support officer positions to improve case processing efficiency. Former Honor Committee Chair Thomas Ackleson also reflected on the influx in cases at the conclusion of his term in April. Ackleson similarly attributed the increase in cases to broader engagement and trust in the Honor Committee by the University community.
Below is an analysis of the two major changes to the UJC bylaws.
Article VII, Hearings
Article VII was completely rewritten in the newest rendition of the bylaws.
Before the amendments passed, Davidson said there were two main avenues to accuse students — the first is a full trial, which Davidson described as a “lengthy process” with opening and closing statements and witnesses. The second is a hearing panel, which previously did not require the accused student to attend trial and instead have their sanction decided by a panel of three UJC judges without direct involvement from the student.
Davidson said there were a number of requirements that students had to meet before a hearing panel could be called, a major requirement being that the offense had to be deemed “minor” by a 3/5 majority vote of the Voting Members of the executive committee. The Voting Members include the chair, the vice chair for sanctions, the vice chair for trials, the vice chair for first-years and the vice chair for graduate students. Because of these requirements, Davidson said the hearing panels were not used often, and it was difficult for the three judges of the hearing panel to decide on a student’s sanctions without having interacted with the accused student.
Accused students are now automatically eligible for hearing panels and are required to attend. Exceptions include unless four out of five Executive Committee members vote that the alleged conduct necessitates a full trial due to the severity of the accusation, the complaint involves an accused group rather than an individual or if the student has previously been found guilty through trial.
Davidson said because the accused student has already pled guilty, the UJC is not focused on investigating the student’s Standards of Conduct violation but rather how the student is learning from their actions and what they have done to repair any harm caused. Thus, Davidson said the focus of hearing panels is placed on the accused student rather than the complainant and subsequently, the complainant is not required to attend. However, the new bylaws do permit complainant attendance in hearing panels if they desire.
Scheduling concerns were another reason cited by Davidson for the restructuring of hearing panels. He stated that if complainants are no longer required to attend hearing panels, then the scheduling process can occur more quickly because fewer parties are involved.
Davidson clarified that before the amendment, a “hearing panel” referred to both the process of the hearing panel and the three judges who oversaw the process. Now, the process is called a “hearing,” and the three judges are called “the hearing panel.”
Under the new article, the hearing panel cannot issue expulsion, suspension, permanent transcript notation or other sanctions deemed permanent, though these sanctions can be issued in abeyance. A sanction issued in abeyance means that a student’s punishment is suspended unless they later engage in specified conduct and are found guilty.
The new article also removes the option for students to pursue an alternative hearing panel, which Davidson said was because the new hearing panel system fully replaces the alternative version.
Alternative hearing panels were governed in the same way as hearing panels, however, the alleged offense of the accused student did not have to be deemed minor and could be of any severity, according to the June 9 version of the bylaws. In the previous version of the bylaws, the purpose of the alternative hearing panel was to provide the UJC with a method to address an “influx of complaints” that the UJC would not be able to hear in a reasonable time through the normal trial process.
Article III, Section (C) (4) (e)
Added provision: The Voting Members of the Executive Committee may decide, in their reasonable discretion, to dismiss a Complaint at any time prior to the opening gavel of a Trial, subject to a four-fifths (4/5) supermajority vote of the Voting Members of the Executive Committee.
Davidson said that going forward, the UJC hopes to avoid situations where it accepts a complaint in which the complainant is acting in “bad faith” or new information may arise that would have caused the UJC to reject the case in the first place.
“We want to make sure that every complaint that makes it to trial is within our jurisdiction and has been handled appropriately,” Davidson said.
Prior to the bylaw amendments, Davidson said that once a complaint is accepted by the Executive Committee, the case must go to trial unless the complainant themself withdraws the complaint.
“In the event that doesn’t happen [and] if it becomes clear to [the Executive Committee] that the case is no longer fit to go to trial … This [amendment] allows us to intervene in those circumstances and dismiss the complaint,” Davidson said.
The revision process
Davidson said that the amendment process, which began over the summer, was completely student-run with no faculty oversight. He credited two UJC members — Kessler Kreutner-Eady, UJC counselor and fourth-year College student, and Griffin Franseze, UJC vice chair for trials and third-year Engineering student — for spearheading the amendments to the bylaws.
According to Davidson, the UJC does not have a set annual schedule for revising its bylaws, however, one of the main tasks of the Policy and Project subcommittee is to review bylaws for revision when necessary.
After drafting the new bylaws but before enacting them, the UJC had to consult the Office of the University Counsel — a legal advisory team to the University appointed by the Attorney General of Virginia — for approval. Davidson said that since the UJC is an Agency Organization, the University Counsel makes sure that any bylaw changes are compliant with the law.
In an email statement to The Cavalier Daily, University Spokesperson Bethanie Glover wrote that Agency Organizations are delegated specific authority from the University Board of Visitors and function on behalf of the University.
Glover wrote that when Agency Organizations pursue changes to their bylaws or constitution, the organization must seek review and advice from the Counsel. However, beyond the Counsel having to ensure “legal sufficiency,” Glover wrote that Agency Organizations are free to amend their bylaws or constitutions as they see fit.
“[The review by the Counsel is] not really a feedback process. [The Counsel is] not making recommendations based on what they believe might be better or worse,” Davidson said. “They just let us know whether or not [the bylaws are] compliant with our obligations.”
In an Oct. 5 follow-up statement to The Cavalier Daily, Davidson wrote that the Counsel approved the bylaws Sept. 30, with the primary request that the UJC alter Article VII, Section (A) (10), Termination of a Hearing, alongside requests for minor technical changes. Prior to Counsel review, the section allowed the hearing panel to unanimously vote to send the case to a UJC or First-Year Judiciary Committee Trial. The prior version of the bylaws provided no further details about how evidence presented during the hearing would be handled in a full trial.
After Counsel review, the bylaws now require the student’s plea of guilt to be “deemed withdrawn” by the hearing panel and for the student’s UJC or FYJC trial to proceed de novo following the hearing panel’s vote. The section states that the plea, statements related to the plea, the Hearing Investigator’s Report — a document compiling accounts of the event from all involved parties by a UJC investigator — or any testimony that occurred during the hearing can be admissible or referenced during the trial. Additionally, the section states that no UJC representative that served in the hearing panel is allowed to serve in the trial.
Davidson wrote that UJC recognizes that a student may have a different reason to plead guilty in a hearing versus a trial, as sanctions such as expulsion, suspension and permanent transcript notations cannot be issued in a hearing but can be issued in a full trial.
“Accordingly, if the hearing panel votes to terminate the [hearing] and require the accused student to resolve their case through a trial, we want to afford the student the right to reconsider their plea in light of the new process,” Davidson wrote.
Davidson wrote that while the Counsel completes the final check-over of the bylaws, the revision process is entirely “student-driven” from the beginning to end of the process.
Reflection on the new bylaws
The new hearing process was designed to help the UJC process the growing number of cases that have been increasing since the pandemic, according to Davidson.
Davidson also said that the increased number of complaints filed by students was a main motivator for the bylaw amendments.
“We view [increased complaints] as students really buying into the system and trusting what the UJC has to offer,” Davidson said. “We want to make sure that no matter how many students come to us with complaints, we have the ability to resolve them.”
Davidson said that after the bylaws have been finalized and support officers have been trained, the UJC hopes to have the new hearing process available for students to pursue in October. As for students whose cases are ongoing by the time the new hearing process is available, Davidson said that as long as the accused students meet the preliminary requirements, the student is eligible to pursue a hearing under the revised bylaws.
Melody Yuan is a staff writer on the news desk. She is a second-year College student studying economics and statistics from Richmond.
Read More
U.Va. international students face suspension of non-required curricular practical training authorization
By Bryan Dean | 23 hours agoCPT is a type of university work authorization for students nationwide on F-1 visas to participate in employment or internships directly related to their field of study.
Student discourse organizations reflect on state of free expression at the University
By Nicolas Biernacki and Austin Stegerwald | 2 days agoThe Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression recently ranked the University No. 9 out of 261 colleges and universities in its 2027 College Free Speech Rankings.
