Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Cavalier Daily's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/11/13 3:49am)
With all due respect to Emily Renda and The Cavalier Daily managing board, it appears that neither fully understands the law regarding burdens of proof in sexual misconduct grievance proceedings at the University. The crux of their positions seems to be that a tension between the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX prevents the University from imposing meaningful punishments upon those who are found to have committed sexual misconduct as a matter of law. Indeed, The Cavalier Daily wrote that “[t]he University is legally stuck.” But that is simply not so, because the law is not nearly as unambiguously clear as Ms. Renda or Thursday’s editorial make it seem.
(09/02/13 1:08am)
I write in response to George Knaysi’s column of August 26.
(04/18/13 12:27am)
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.
(03/04/13 4:35am)
After a contentious campaign season that culminated in one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, the student body of the University of Virginia has approved the most significant reforms to honor in several decades — albeit not the reforms the Honor Committee originally hoped would pass. The approval of second-year Law student Frank Bellamy’s referendum and the rejection of the Restore the Ideal Act place the future path of honor in some doubt. What proportion of honor cases will go to trial? How many convictions will be handed down? Will informed retraction improve the perception of honor in the eyes of faculty and the student body? Such questions cannot be answered until the new informed retraction system is given the chance to operate for a reasonable period of time. Yet, while the election results certainly raised new questions, they also provided three definitive answers which current and future Honor Committees should take heed of.
(01/28/13 7:05am)
I WRITE to urge my fellow members of the academic community to reject the recently proposed changes to our Honor System. As a second-year law student here at Virginia, I am shocked that these proposals are being accorded serious consideration, as these so-called “reforms” are wholly inconsistent with basic precepts of due process and the adversarial system of fact-finding.