I was not altogether surprised to
read the announcement (C.D., 19th
February) of a little "mistake"
which resulted in a student being
dismissed from the University some
two years ago after an Honor
Committee "trial", Mistakes will
happen; and in a system where
publicity and automatic (rather
than special) appeals procedures do
not accompany the hearing,
mistakes are conceivably even more
frequent than in the admittedly
imperfect "normal" trial.
But I am surprised that the
Cavalier Daily is content merely to
report the mysterious official
reinstatement of an anonymous
appellant who disappeared without
trace two years ago.
It may be that generally the
condemned men are content to
remove themselves with a minimum
of publicity. Few of them, perhaps,
after re-establishing themselves
elsewhere, are interested in
pursuing the question of an appeal.
When they do so, however, I would
think that the Honor Committee
and their press watchdogs owe the
University community a full report
of all stages of the unhappy affair.
Yet all we get is the assurance that
all mention of it is to be removed
from the student's record. How
convenient. Will we have to wait for
a full story until one of these affairs
is properly aired in a Courtroom?
Simon Pepper
School of Architecture
