Blank
The dishonor of apathy
by Matt Waring
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=25246&pid=1369
JOE SCHLINGBAUM and Lindsay McClung, two College
third years accused of illicit collaboration in a political
theory class, had their day in court on Sunday. Their highly
publicized open honor trial was a significant one, not only
because of their eventual acquittal but rather because it
was the first open honor trial in three years. The trial provided
a timely view into the often-hidden world of the honor system,
and demonstrated that the system has both things to be
proud of and things it needs to work on.
The trial system certainly affords accused students every
opportunity to defend themselves. Honor Committee Chair
David Hobbs, who chaired the trial, said at the outset, "The
purpose of this trial is to determine the truth." He also
frequently reminded the jury of the principles of reasonable
doubt, etc., involved. The trial itself was run in a professional
way and there had obviously been a thorough and fair
investigation of the events in question. And although no
lawyers are allowed at honor trials, the accused students were represented by highly
competent student counsels, as was the community. Schlingbaum and McClung were by no
means hung out to dry.
That being said, the trial also served as a vivid reminder of the pitfalls of the
current honor system. The trial only took one day, but this represented just the
final phase of the proceedings. The charges against Schlingbaum and McClung were
filed last spring, stringing out the process over many months. If every honor charge
involves an equally cumbersome inquest and trial, it's easy to understand why
professors and teaching assistants are reluctant to initiate cases when they discover
honor offenses and instead choose to deal with the matter themselves.
The issue of punishment is the other weak point of the honor system and probably its
Achilles' heel. The only punishment available for guilty offenders in the current
honor system is, of course, expulsion, meted out by student juries. This double-edged
sword makes it hard for anyone to be sanctioned under the current system; student
juries have a hard time passing judgment on their peers, and the single sanction is a
hard punishment for anyone to impose.
This problem needs to be addressed for the honor system to work properly. Faculty do
their part by weighing the situation carefully before reporting cases -- Sara Henary,
the TA in the course in question, and Politics Prof. Stephen White, who taught it,
considered the case a good deal before deciding to bring the students up on honor
charges. In other words, professors and TAs are usually reasonably certain of guilt
going into the investigation. Faced with a system that most likely will not punish
the students unless guilt is very blatant, however, they will be reluctant to let the
system do its work.
The problem of punishment needs to be approached from both angles: student juries and
the single sanction. The honor system is based on the concept of student
self-governance, but it's asking a lot of students, especially first years, to
sentence other students, and it only becomes harder the more hazy the offense is.
Students still need to have the final say on what the system does, but why not have a
faculty representative advise the jury? Faculty members, especially those who have
been around a while, have a better idea of what sort of offense would "result in the
dissolution of the community of trust." The faculty would probably place more
confidence in the honor system if they were more involved, and allowing one professor
to weigh in without voting isn't going to wrest Honor away from student control.
The single sanction needs to be addressed as well, and replaced by a range of
punishments than can be tailored to fit the crime. Schlingbaum and McClung were found
guilty on act and intent, meaning that four-fifths of the jury believed the two
violated the honor code. If other, less harsh punishments had been available to the
jury, one of those may have been applied. Instead, we're left with a situation where
no one is absolutely satisfied with the outcome and the honor system simply looks
worse.
The University's honor system is one of its proudest traditions, and it is even more
important to this institution in light of the many ethical dilemmas students face
today. If the general apathy of students on the subject can be reduced and real
reforms enacted, the system can continue to be one that upholds the values of the
University and sets it apart for years to come.
Matt Waring's column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached
at mwaring@cavalierdaily.com.
Clarification: The originial column claimed that because the jury in the open honor
trial believed the accused students violated the honor code for act and intent, the
jury believed they knowingly violated the honor code. Because the definition of
intent includes whether the accused students knew, or should have known, it is
impossible to say whether the jury believed they knowingly violated the honor code
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all *****-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
.
|
