University of Virginia Library

Honor Committee Hearings
Reveal Room For Change

By Tom Jenks
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"If some change should be made
in the Honor System, it would have
to take the form of a proposal to
the entire student body, that is the
form of a referendum, if such a
proposal could even be made," said
Larry Altaffer, chairman of the
Honor Committee, on Tuesday
night following the Committee's
hearing on "Procedures of the
Honor System."

The hearing on procedures was
the third of three hearings in which
any and all students were invited to
present their views, ideas, and
suggestions about the Honor
System.

When asked what he felt had
been accomplished in these
hearings, Mr. Altaffer said,
"Although there was not as large a
response as we would have liked to
have had, the hearings did give us a
good look at many of the attitudes
that students hold about the Honor
System.

Rules for evidence, separation of
judge and jury, and the adversary
nature of the proceeding were cited
by third-year law student Bill
Wooldridge as three areas of
possible improvement in the Honor
System.

Mr. Wooldridge, who gave the
first presentation at Tuesday's
hearing, recommended the
adoption of a rule that would
prevent any accuser or witness from
testifying as to statements made by
another person, stating that such a
rule would guarantee the accused
the right to be present and to
confront the witness.

Mr. Wooldridge added that,
according to administrative law, the
director of the proceedings or the
chairman of the Honor Committee
should be a separate position from
the group that decides the trail. He
therefore suggested that the
chairman have no vote in the
committee's deliberations and that
he simply act as director of action.

By the adversary nature of the
proceedings, Mr. Wooldridge
explained that he meant that the
formal rules which govern the main
body of the trial should also be
made to govern the informal
discussion, in which a party may
ask a question of the other. "Such a
change in procedure would insure
the accused an orderly trial," Mr.
Wooldridge said.

Right to counsel was the main
issue raised in the hearing by
third-year law student and
American Civil Liberties Union
representative, Ed Villmore.

The following quotation is a
statement of the ACLU that Mr.
Villmore read at the hearing: "...the
present [single sanction Honor]
system is analogous to banishment
or what might be called academic
capital punishment. With such
severe punishment being the only
sanction, there must be strong
safeguards for personal liberty and
rights.

"Every accused should have the
right to be represented by a
practicing attorney of his choice if
he wishes to retain one at his own
expense. The Honor System should
be strong enough that the presence
of a trained lawyer would not
inhibit the system but in the long
run make it stronger."

Second-year law student
Thomas J. Bryan in his presentation
to the Honor Committee said, "I
propose that a new record keeping
system be established to improve
the operation of the Honor System."

He said that the record should
consist of two parts: "First, a
recital of the factual evidence
which persuaded the committee
that the person did or did not
engage in the conduct with which
he was charged; and, secondly, a
holding stating whether or not the
conduct, if engaged in, constitutes
an honor code violation and the
reason for so holding."