University of Virginia Library

STUDENT DISCIPLINE

At the request of the Rector, President Darden reported on the action taken regarding an
occurrence of student misconduct that took place on the weekend of April 3rd-4th. He outlined
the inquiry conducted by himself and by Mr. Richard R. Fletcher, Director of Student Affairs,
following a complaint from the parents of a young woman who had been a guest of a University
student on the weekend in question, and leading to his expulsion of four students, the
suspension for varying periods of seven others, and the withholding for one year of the degree
of a recent alumnus. The inquiry was completed and the penalties set on April 25th.

President Darden had thought it appropriate to decline a proposal from attorneys employed
by the disciplined students for a review of the inquiry and penalties by a committee of
impartial citizens. The President said, however, that he had told the attorneys he was
willing to review the inquiry and findings in the presence of a committee from the Board, and
to give the utmost consideration to the opinions expressed by such a committee. This procedure
had been undertaken and completed during the past two days.

The Rector continued the summary, reporting that he had met with the attorneys in Richmond
on last Friday, May 7th, and had appointed a Committee consisting of himself, Judge Barksdale,
Judge Gravatt, Mr. Howard, and Judge Smith to sit with the President in a review of the case.
This Committee had sat in continuous session all day on Wednesday, May 12th and Thursday,
May 13th. Every charged student had been given a full hearing, and parents and attorneys had
been permitted to be in the room. Each attorney had been given a free rein in examination and
cross-examination of witnesses and in argument on behalf of his particular client or clients.

Most of the first day, the Rector reported, had been devoted to an exhaustive study of the
methods used in conducting the original inquiry. The Committee had been fully satisfied from
the students' own testimony that no promises of immunity had been made by Mr. Fletcher, and
that no student had been left under a belief that he had been promised (1) immunity
from discipline, or (2) anonymity (except in the case of attorneys for the family of the young
woman involved).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee conferred at considerable length with Mr.
Darden. Its function was merely advisory. It suggested to Mr. Darden that the suspension
penalties imposed upon four of the students were perhaps a little lengthy in consideration
of the actual involvement of these students. As to one of the students who was expelled, the
Committee thought that this expulsion could be softened to a somewhat lengthy suspension.
With this exception, the Committee was of the opinion that the other punishments were reasonable
and fair. Mr. Darden stated that before imposing these punishments, he had consulted three
of the deans of the school, and they had all been of the opinion that the punishments were
not too harsh. However, he acquiesced in the suggestions of the Committee, and the punishments
were changed accordingly. The action of the Committee was a unanimous one.

The President stated that the students were still continuing at the University and that all
penalties had been held in abeyance pending the completion of the review by the Committee from
the Board.

In the discussion that followed, it was emphasized by Judge Smith and other members of
the Committee that varying degrees of punishment for similar offenses clearly represented
varying degrees of involvement, responsibility, and guilt on the part of the several students
concerned.