University of Virginia Library

In Honor System's Future

Lawyer Foresees Court Action

According to the former student,
the Chairman of the Committee
should be given a clear cut,
written grant of power for common
sense discretion in cases. At present
the grant is just understood and
may vary from chairman to chairman.

Mr. Lowe also questioned the
validity and value of hearsay
evidence that is now allowed during
trial. He felt that this type of
evidence has been shown unreliable
in the judicial system.

A file of precedents, open to all
students, would be a good idea, said
the Charlottesville attorney. This
file would help inform the students
on what has constituted an honor
violation in the past.

At present witnesses in a trial
are not required to take an oath
before they testify. Mr. Lowe noted
that even though students are under
the Honor System, an oath should
be required for legal purposes. He
contended that some of the criticisms
may seem small, but if the
system were taken to Court, all of
these points could be introduced in
argument.

An attack on the system
through court would come under
the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution. Since the Honor
Committee's decisions receive tacit
validity from the Administration,
the Committee is acting under the
cloak of state authority, stated Mr.
Lowe.

Aside from the legal obligations,
Mr. Lowe noted that the Honor
Committee ought to follow the
Jeffersonian doctrine of following
truth wherever it might lead in
conducting a trial. He observed that
there is a general "moral obligation
to the accused."

Other legal experts find that the
system offers a valid hearing to the
accused. Daniel J. Meador, Dean of
the University of Alabama School
of Law has written that "the Honor
System at the University of Virginia
appears to afford a relatively high
degree of procedural protections to
an accused student and to guarantee
on the whole quite a fair
hearing."