University of Virginia Library

---

4998

RESOLUTION REGARDING THE HONOR COMMITTEE

The following resolution was adopted:

• WHEREAS, the Rector and Visitors are charged by law with "the government and management of the University" including the power and responsibility to "regulate the government and discipline of the students" (Va. Code § 23-76);
• WHEREAS, the Rector and Visitors, by prior resolutions and actions, endorsed the establishment of an Honor Code, which stipulates a disciplinary standard of student conduct, and have delegated to the Honor Committee, which is comprised of elected student leaders, the responsibility to administer the Honor Code;
• WHEREAS, in exercising the statutorily delegated authority with respect to "the government and management of the University" generally and with respect to "the government and discipline of the students" specifically, the Rector and Visitors are "at all times subject to the control of the General Assembly" (Va. Code § 23-69), and are empowered to "make such regulations as they may deem expedient, not being contrary to law" (Va. Code § 23-76);
• WHEREAS, in exercising the subdelegated authority with respect to the administration of the Honor Code, the Honor Committee is correspondingly subject at all times to the control of the Rector and Visitors, and the regulations the Honor Committee adopts and the student disciplinary cases it adjudicates must not be contrary to law;
• WHEREAS, the Rector and Visitors have, from time to time, directed the Honor Committee, itself or in consultation with appropriate University administrators, to conduct studies and to review its rules in order to ensure that the administration of the Honor Code and the adjudication of student disciplinary cases are undertaken responsibly and consistent with pertinent legal requirements;
• WHEREAS, the Rector and Visitors are ultimately responsible for actions affecting students and, accordingly, are provided legal defense and indemnification for actions and claims arising in the good faith performance of their delegated public duties, and members of the Honor Committee, as agents of the Rector and Visitors, are similarly entitled to such protections arising in the good faith performance of their subdelegated public duties; and
• WHEREAS, questions have recently arisen with respect to the Honor Committee's authority to consider disciplinary charges initiated against former and current members of the Honor Committee that contest decisions made or actions taken, in good faith as agents of the University, in connection with the administration of the Honor Code or the adjudication of specific disciplinary cases;

---

4999



• RESOLVED that, pursuant to their overarching and ultimate statutory responsibility for the government and discipline of students and their power to make regulations that are not contrary to law, the Rector and Visitors hereby clarify and affirm that the Honor Committee is not empowered to consider charges or institute disciplinary proceedings against former, current, or future members of the Honor Committee that challenge or otherwise assail decisions made or actions taken, after consultation with the President or the General Counsel of the University, by such members in the performance of their duties as agents of the University with respect to the administration of the Honor Code or the adjudication of specific disciplinary cases;
• RESOLVED FURTHER that any such proceedings undertaken by the Honor Committee constitute an improper use of the Honor Code, and consequently are neither authorized nor will be accorded any legal effect or implementation by the University;
• RESOLVED FURTHER that this resolution shall not be construed to foreclose: (1) Honor proceedings against Honor Committee members who are charged with misconduct in their personal capacities as individual students (and not in their official capacities as University agents); (2) actions, under duly established Honor Committee rules, to remove individual Committee members from their elected positions, based on material failure or refusal to perform their prescribed duties; or (3) the filing of disciplinary charges, with the University Judiciary Committee, against individual members of the Honor Committee, under the Standards of Conduct which proscribe "intentional conduct which violates the rules of confidentiality, or which obstructs the operations of the Honor Committee."