Honor Explanation

Sophie Staples
Sent: Tuesday, March 17 2009


Monday’s lead editorial (“10 days to leave (admitting guilt),” 3/16/2009) reflected several misunderstandings about the by-law proposal discussed by the Honor Committee. First, this proposal does not consolidate power in the hands of one individual. Instead, the language in the amendment explicitly allows both the Vice Chair for Trials and Committee chair — the two Committee members with the most knowledge about the trial schedule — to have input in this decision. This is no significant difference from the current system, which places this responsibility in the hands of two Committee members and a pre-trial coordinator assigned at the discretion of the Vice Chair for Trials.

This will not only expedite the process, but will also provide consistency that is lacking under the current arrangement. Moreover, The Cavalier Daily is mistaken to suggest that this proposal will increase the Committee’s reliance on e-mail correspondence. Official correspondence is sent via e-mail as well as certified mail, in order to notify students as quickly and conveniently for them as possible. Each accused student is also assigned an advisor, who often meets with the student in person to help the student write his or her trial request letter and answer any questions he or she might have. This proposal in no way limits the Committee’s communication with accused students to e-mail. In fact, by streamlining the process, it will likely decrease the opportunity for miscommunication, not increase it. Finally, under the current system, a student is considered to have left admitting guilt if he or she does not request a trial within the ten day period. This proposal does not change that, but simply requires that a student select an available date or propose a viable and reasonable alternative within the already existing ten day deadline. This amendment would not remove the honor system’s existing safeguards, and would in fact benefit accused students: it provides them an opportunity to request a different date if they are not available on the dates provided to them, and will prevent confusion by explicitly outlining the procedure for handling such situations in the by-laws.