<p>
</p>
<p>This just is not true. I have met everyone on the Committee and I personally know most of them. The Honor Committee has possibly been “zealots” in the past, but that’s not true of the present day. I’ve been around when the Chair has had to sign the enrollment discontinued paperwork and I see how he agonizes over it. Nobody who is involved in the Honor System, myself included (as a counsel), enjoys removing people from UVa. Rather, we do it because we believe in the ideal of Honor although we become generally disenchanted with the System as we grow older and see how the System is flawed. The System does not work the way it should and everyone knows it, but whenever we try to propose a change we get blamed for being “zealots” and everyone shoots it down. Everyone is a critic, but nobody ever decides to try to plan a reform unless they are involved in Honor. The general student body is never proactive–only reactionary.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I’ve been on trials with Committee juries, Mixed (Committee members and random students) juries, and random student juries and the accused students, by far, got the most fair treatment from the Committee jury. They know what a severe task they are charged with and they debate it for long hours compared to random students who do not want to be there and are checking their phones when the accused student is speaking. You can call me biased if you want, but it happens with startlingly regularity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Single Sanction will never be removed. The Alumni Association raises large amounts of money ($25,000+) to campaign against any movement. The Honor Committee does not deal the cards, but plays with the hand it is dealt.</p>
<p>In addition, the Chair has weekly meetings with both the Executive Vice President for Student Affairs, Pat Lampkin, and the General Counsel’s Office for the University. During these times the Honor Committee does get guidance on how to proceed with affairs, but giving them oversight and the ability to reverse decision would completely violate the idea of student self-governance.</p>
<p>I feel that most people are missing the main point of this legislation which is to allow for students who have committed an Honor Offense to leave for a year and then return to the Community of Trust. I have had to represent students in the past who are some of the bravest people who I have ever met because he or she had the courage to admit to what he or she had done knowing very well that he or she could get a guilty verdict by doing so. All of these students have been removed from the University and they are the students that we want to keep here. Not the students who lie through their teeth to the jury panels and then get off scot-free. The problem is that if we allow for students to acknowledge their wrong doings then we will always have students who try to get past random student panels which is why the Honor Committee has also included jury reform onto this process.</p>
<p>If anyone wants any clarification then please let me know. If I sound exasperated then please forgive me because it is not directed toward anyone on this forum.</p>