<p>Oh this whole thing makes me so upset. This poor kid has been essentially sold down the river; where does his life go now? Someone at UVA, perhaps the Dean or the Board of Visitors, really need to analyze this process. You know, the Honor Code was one thing in TJ’s time and the Academical Village, but flash ahead to 2009. It’s now a huge University with major societal ramifications when one is expelled. The system is so very flawed and someone with authority needs to step forward and take control. Please.</p>
<p>Here here PowerPuff! It is so sad. No admittance of character is allowed in a honor trial. Then what is honor? It is soley about whether a person didn’t cite enough times, like my daughter. Or is it about the fact that she was a caring, kind, hard working student that went to the poorest people in the world to teach them, waitressed to maintain her tuition and was an RA? What kind of people judge someone like this to be dishonorable? She even sent her paper to the original author from whom she was charged with plagiarism. He said he would have had her do a paper on subconscious plagiarism with proper citations. He did not support expulsion. This was not allowed in the trial.</p>
<p>Let me extend that… this evidence was not allowed in the trial. Nor the fact that she was in a service fraternity. Juries are not allowed to know that. Dean J, how can you feel ok with this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is so unclear to me who that would be. I realize it is not Dean J in admissions but I can’t figure out where a student run honor system intersects with the administration.</p>
<p>Sad mama, now I know why your name is “Sad mama”. I grieve with you. </p>
<p>Dean J certainly is not responsible for this system, but perhaps can be that window of communication to those who are ultimately responsible for how the Honor Code functions. The whole thing sounds like a Kangaroo Court, and it’s terrifying to know that good people are having their lives so seriously and irrevocably altered by (what seems like) very petty allegations.</p>
<p>Buck stops where??>>>President of The University?>> I think so. There has to be a system where someone is a strong advocate for the student.</p>
<p>[Cavalier</a> Daily](<a href=“http://www.cavalierdaily.com/news/2009/apr/07/in-defense-of-jason-smith/]Cavalier”>http://www.cavalierdaily.com/news/2009/apr/07/in-defense-of-jason-smith/)</p>
<p>In defense of Jason Smith
Due process failed to be observed in Jason Smith’s trial</p>
<p>Robert Baldwin, Guest Viewpoint
Published: Tuesday, April 7 2009</p>
<p>The verdict in Jason Smith’s open honor trial was shocking, disappointing, and saddening. As several students have argued this week, more than reasonable doubt existed as to his guilt. And observers at his trial agreed nearly unanimously on the triviality of his actions. If we all shared Smith’s apathetic work ethic, the academic community would surely be compromised; and he therefore deserved to fail the class. Open toleration of his deception, however, would break only the weakest bonds of trust.</p>
<p>More alarming is the fundamentally unfair process that led to his conviction. The Honor Committee pledges to all students “a fair process for investigation and adjudication of Alleged Honor Offenses.” Last Sunday, however, the system failed to protect Smith from overzealous accusations and draconian application of the single sanction.</p>
<p>I do not know Smith. Nor, I suspect, do most members of the University. But, as members of the community of trust, we are all harmed by denials of basic due process in Committee proceedings. There are four particularly troubling aspects of his trial.</p>
<p>First, Smith was not tried by a jury of his peers. Although the Committee’s by-laws call only for “a panel of randomly-selected students” to deliver a verdict, the accused may have at least two members selected from his school. The purpose is obvious: to have jurors with his shared academic experience.</p>
<p>However, a second major category shapes the experiences of students: class year. An individual’s perspective on honor — and what is trivial or not — surely develops during his time here. Having a jury that heavily favors older or younger students might lead to inconsistent and unjust verdicts. Five of 11 jurors who convicted Smith were first-years; only four had moved beyond their second year. Critically, not one juror was the same year as Smith.</p>
<p>Contrast this young jury with the group of observers who would have found Smith not guilty: third- and fourth-year students compromised the majority along with several graduate students and parents of counsel. While this difference does not alone explain opposite outcomes, it is reasonable to assume it was a factor.</p>
<p>From the accused’s ability to include members of his school or department on his jury, we may reasonably “deduce the . . . responsibility” of the Committee to afford additional procedures necessary for “fundamental fairness” as allowed under the by-laws. This must include the ability to have jurors from your class present on the jury as well. Practically, it may be difficult to get such diversity on the jury. But it is a necessity for fairness — and that must always trump feasibility as a concern.</p>
<p>Secondly, lack of precedent on non-triviality may have led to an inconsistent application of the single sanction. Since non-triviality requires only a majority vote by the jury to convict, precedent is especially important when a near majority of a jury reflects only one school or one class year.</p>
<p>Because the Committee keeps its proceedings confidential, student juries must make their determination of non-triviality based on personal belief alone. Therefore, what was non-trivial on one day may be trivial the next depending on the students randomly selected. It is fundamentally unfair for a student’s dismissal to turn on happenstance.</p>
<p>Additionally, the primary witness provided unfairly prejudicial testimony to the jury. All students should be entitled to report honor offenses to the Committee. But when a member of the Committee is bringing the charge, special procedures should be required to ensure impartiality. In Smith’s trial, Mary Siegel proved to be an effective witness. In fact, she showed a greater command of the evidence and process than counsel for the community did.</p>
<p>However, a critical portion of her testimony concerned conversations between Smith and the other student facilitator to which Siegel was not a participant. The trial chair should have excluded such testimony as hearsay evidence since it could lead to the improper assumption of consistency between the facilitators’ accounts of their individual conversations with Smith.</p>
<p>More importantly, her belief that Smith’s actions were non-trivial should have been inadmissible. That is a question solely for the jury. Given both her recent public campaign and election as Vice-Chair for Investigations — and the predominantly first- and second-year composition of the jury — is it inconceivable that her verdict on his guilt unfairly prejudiced jurors? Siegel is not an expert on honor, so her opinion should be irrelevant to the jury’s deliberations. Any consideration of those statements by the jury is improper and, therefore, should not have been allowed in the first place.</p>
<p>Although counsel for the accused brilliantly impeached the credibility of Siegel’s recollection towards the end of the trial (indeed, Siegel curiously relied heavily on the evidence packet to guide her testimony), that alone cannot cure prejudicial testimony already admitted. Testimony should have been limited to written statements from Siegel and live testimony from the other facilitator.</p>
<p>Lastly, impartiality of the Committee cannot be assumed when charges are brought by its own members. The fact that the primary witness against Smith also serves on the Committee greatly limited Smith’s options in selecting his jury panel. Given the significant time commitment of serving on the Committee, members naturally become friends outside of their work. It is doubtful that members serving on the Investigation Panel could serve as an effective check on accusations by other members in the initial stages of the process. Could such a panel then effectively weigh the testimony of one of its own members free from bias at a trial? What student would choose those very same members to serve on his trial panel? A jury of his peers was his only viable option.</p>
<p>Siegel’s role in Smith’s conviction similarly compromises his right to appeal. The impartiality of the Committee is not infallible. I question whether the members of the committee on the appeal review panel would act as more than a rubber-stamp on the verdict.
As stewards of the community of trust, and beneficiaries of its privileges, we must recognize, as Thomas Jefferson did, that “the best method of government for youth in large collections is certainly a desideratum not yet attained by us.” We must constantly strive to ensure that all individuals in honor proceedings receive the full protection of due process. The by-laws grant the power to the Committee to enact such measures, but so long as Smith’s conviction is upheld, fundamental fairness is not a guarantee.</p>
<p>Today, our community is threatened not by the actions of Smith, but by the unjust and unfair method of his dismissal.</p>
<p>Robert Baldwin is a third-year student in the Law School.</p>
<p>I must say this has been a very distressing thread for a parent of an incoming freshman. while UVA has many many wonderful things both academically and socially, this appears to be a negative especially in how it is implemented. the process seems in direct contrast with the qualities and respect level the the university values.</p>
<p>I would hope in the administration seeing it’s tremendous flaws would work towards restoring it to it’s original purpose, a purpose that should be dignified.</p>
<p>Giggles: Indeed this is a serious thing to consider when you decide to attend UVa. The real surprise is how surprised incoming students often are when they find out they really have to abide by the system. As a former UVa student and soon-to-be UVa parent, I would truly recommend you talk to your student at some length about the implications of the system they will be living under.</p>
<p>1) Stealing is the easy one, nothing much to say here. I suppose you could get in trouble if you borrowed something without permission, but intent to steal would be hard to prove I think if your intentions were innocent. Best to ask the owner first though, as is always the case.</p>
<p>2) Lying: if you miss handing in an assignment because you decided to go to a party the night before rather than working on it, don’t tell your professor that you were sick with the flu or that your great-uncle died. Whatever the situation, own up to the true circumstances if asked. Again, as would be best anywhere, if you are in a jam talk to the professor or whoever, hopefully as soon as possible, and ask for some dispensation without offering excuses. If you think about it, Giggles, this approach is good training for life.</p>
<p>3) Cheating: this is the toughest one. I have talked to my student about this already. For any piece of work, project, or exam, you need to be clear on what the prof’s (or whoever’s) expectations and rules are. If you have the go-ahead to collaborate, or use a book when taking an exam, or to just ask a classmate for help, by all means feel free to do so. If on the other hand you are asked to do your own work without help, do that. This is why cheating I think is the most dangerous category, because you may be faced with vague guidelines or be swayed by fellow students who don’t take the rules seriously. Just my opinion but I think the more widespread the cheating, the more likely an initially well-meaning individual will be to get caught up in it.<br>
Please note that what I’m saying here does not change my reservations about the way the honor system works, or the mind-set of the people who are active in those workings. What I am saying is that by being truthful and honest in your dealings (even if it means taking a few lumps- maybe a lower grade or even a failed assignment?) you will do just fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t appear that the administration is looking. Probably due to the long history of student governance of the honor system. I wish Cav302 would come back and give us some advice about who the proper parties would be.</p>
<p>It looks like a couple folks in the law school might be willing to help, certainly the folks with the 1000 signatures on FB seem interested in righting the wrongs. Who else would be appropriate? I’m not talking about the mary thing, I’m thinking of some sort of proceedural audit to assure the process is fair and the rules are both clear and adhered to.</p>
<p>weldon, excellent post. It does seem that the honor system could use some improvement but you have outlined some guidelines that could serve all students, no matter where they attend, well.</p>
<p>Those collecting signatures are on the right track. From [the</a> Honor Committee Constitution](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/honor/const.html]the”>http://www.virginia.edu/honor/const.html):
</p>
<p>As for some sort of audit, I think you’ll have to look through the constitution and by-laws for information about that. I’m not an expert on the code and am not sure if that is part of their process.</p>
<p>I am working with some other parents who have been in this situation. We are also working with the facebook group. Something needs to be done to keep this injustice from happening again and again. One of the student’s parents is the semester at sea debacle. The other is a parent whose student was expelled for plagiarism and his paper was in Spanish. The jury never received it in English! Appeal denied, of course. We will continue to work against this. The problem with expulsion for plagiarism is how do you really judge intent. Prof. Briceland of VCU contends that it is near impossible. However we leave it in the hands of 18-21 yr old students to know for sure. Come on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks Dean J. Anyone have a link to the by-laws? The constitution is very broad.</p>
<p>sad mama, I really hope you have some sucess with this process. I am having a hard time understanding it.</p>
<p>
It’s on the Honor website. Just roll back one page to the general “Governing Documents” page.</p>
<p>Professors stand up for Jason: [Cavalier</a> Daily](<a href=“http://cavalierdaily.com/news/2009/apr/16/an-unfair-trial/]Cavalier”>http://cavalierdaily.com/news/2009/apr/16/an-unfair-trial/)</p>
<p>An unfair trial
Professors believe Jason Smith’s actions are in no way deserving of expulsion</p>
<p>Susan Fraiman and Arthur Kirsch, Guest Viewpoint
Published: Thursday, April 16 2009</p>
<p>We are writing as faculty members in the Department of English to protest the recent honor conviction of one of our majors, Jason Smith. Smith was convicted of lying on March 29, and is now in the process of appealing. In addition to the two of us whose signatures appear below, twenty-four other colleagues in English have expressed their agreement with what follows. Many of us have been teaching at the University for two decades or more. We speak not only from vast and varied pedagogical experience, but also from longstanding familiarity with and dedication to the University, its honor system, its commitment to academic fairness, and its standards of academic rigor. It is our view that to deny Smith’s appeal — indeed, to have convicted him in the first place — is ludicrous in pedagogical terms and unfair by any moral measure.</p>
<p>We fully concur with Smith and a great many others on Grounds in questioning the fairness of his trial. Above all, it strikes us as virtually impossible for the initial trial and subsequent appeal to proceed in a wholly unbiased manner given that the reporter and primary witness against him is herself a member of the Honor Committee. As a prominent member of the Committee, Mary Siegel’s testimony and interpretation of honor by-laws would necessarily have carried undue weight with unschooled jurors. The appeals process seems to us even more obviously tainted, due to its handling by Committee members who work side by side with the person most responsible for bringing charges against Smith.</p>
<p>We also question, from a procedural point of view, the jurors’ ability to determine, without reference to precedent or any other consistent guideline, the “triviality” or “non-triviality” of Smith’s actions (even assuming them to have been in violation of the honor code). Moreover, speaking from a pedagogical point of view, we are unanimous in characterizing the alleged actions as trivial in the extreme. We say this having received, in our time, thousands of papers, many of them late, some extremely so. Needless to say, we have also heard thousands of excuses, ranging from the flimsy to the legitimate. We routinely deal, every day of our teaching lives, with student absences, some excused and a great many unexcused. Almost every semester we have students at least as imperfect as Smith — often for reasons beyond their control. And whether or not the student is at fault, rarely do such matters warrant more than a warning and the loss of a few grade points. Never would we consider bringing such students up on honor charges. If we did, we can assure you it would make a significant dent in the student population. We are, frankly, appalled that undergraduate instructors have been permitted to behave in a way that appears to us a form of pedagogical malpractice. In addition to the gross misjudgment of filing honor charges in this instance, we are pained to hear that Smith was required to write a two-page paper on why he should come to class and why he failed to do so. This kind of punitive busywork is an insult to the high academic standards of the University.</p>
<p>Our final argument in favor of dismissing the charges against Smith has to do with larger concerns of fairness — fairness in the eyes of other students and faculty, and of those outside as well as within the University and its particular honor system. In a state or federal court of law, sentencing always involves consideration of a person’s character, record, and other relevant circumstances. In this case, the accused has a solid academic record, and a hitherto flawless disciplinary one. Jason also happens to be the first in his family to attend college, transferring here from a community college. Without question, he has worked with admirable diligence and persistence to get where he is today — a month from being granted a University degree. As we say, we do not believe that Smith has received a fair trial; but even were he guilty as charged, surely the public ordeal of being brought up on honor charges, in addition to being denied credit for the course in question, would be more than adequate punishment. To expel Smith and deny him a University degree on top of all this seems to us a grotesque miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, it not only harms Smith but also harms the honor system, making it less able, in the future, to address genuinely non-trivial cases with credibility.</p>
<p>Susan Fraiman is a professor in the English department and Arthur Kirsch is the Alice Griffin Professor of English, Emeritus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, these professors are subject matter experts. According the them this is absolutely trival. I wish someone had called these people as witnesses. </p>
<p>Based upon the dateline of the article it seems it came out after the appeal was denied. Clearly this would have to be viewed as new evidence which is required to be granted an appeal. </p>
<p>Thanks for the post Barboza. I hadn’t seen this before.</p>
<p>I hope the UVA administration gets involved in this case. From everything I read, this sounds like a travesty of justice and is a black mark against UvA. Look at the number of visits to the post (~7000) - far more than any other… this is going to tarnish UVA’s reputation if it is not addressed by the higher ups… </p>
<p>leaving it the honor committee is not acceptable when the honor committee has a conflict of interest and did not properly recuse themselves.</p>
<p>At a minimum, I would think students would stay away from classes taught by other undergraduates who do not have enough experience/perspective to address situations that can and will arise.</p>
<p>I received an email today (addressed to our class) from one of my non-SEAS professors. </p>
<p>He said irregularities cropped up in the final exam that may well lead to a hearing by Honor. However, he did say that anyone involved (apparently several) would be better off speaking to him now before the end of the investigation.</p>
<p>Having gotten to know this instructor fairly well this last school year, I know that he cares greatly for his students. I think he is genuinely disappointed in the students involved but he also believes in the Honor system. My guess is that the confessing students will receive an F on the exam, while the others will face charges. Presuming their guilt, I won’t be shedding any tears.</p>
<p>My Econ 201 would literally watch half his class cheat on the econ midterm and not only did he not care, he never addressed the issue in class. If he cared about the Honor Code, about 80 people would have been kicked out of UVA my semester alone. Profs. fail to do anything because many of them don’t agree with how severe Honor can be with some scapegoat students.</p>