University of Virginia Library

Honor Code Reform

free election to attend the
University of Virginia, any
inconsistency or vagueness in its
terms will likely be construed
against the University because of
the absence of any meaningful
negotiation and the student's
patently inferior bargaining
position. Moreover, a court should
construe any contractual
reservation of power to expel by
the University as an unreasonable
grant of power, as unconscionable,
and as void as against public policy.
Indeed, under strict contract law,
the student might very well stand
to benefit; the University, by
expelling the student, may be
repudiating the contract of seeking
readmission. The burden of proof
would then be on the University to
show the student's breach, instead
of the present requirement that the
student prove that he has not
violated any University regulation.
Clearly, it goes without saying that
these common law rights of the
student may not be conditioned on
his decision to enroll at a school
with, as opposed to without, an
honor system; and it goes without
saying that provision for the prior
application of a less severe penalty
here substantially undercuts the
strong policy considerations which
weigh heavily in favor of a court's
employing this analysis.

To summarize, in expelling the
student, one of several institutional
goals may properly be served: (1)
limited academic resources may be
reserved for only those who make
the most effective use of them: (2)
academic standards may be
preserved by punishing those who
trespass against the canons of
academic honesty: (3) the
self-protective goals, such as
preserving internal order, may be
served. In most other matters;
however, where the Committee is
acting to safeguard institutional
interests or to train or improve the
student's character rather than to
foster the development of
legitimate University
responsibilities, the application of
only one penalty, unilaterally,
imposed for every offence would
seem inappropriate: it is most likely
an affront to the Fourteenth
Amendment, and it is most
assuredly in derogation of common
law principles of property and
contract.