University of Virginia Library

Relevant Considerations

The application, moreover, of
three relevant constitutional
considerations leads to the same
results: the constitutional doctrine
of (a) unconstitutional conditions
(b) equal protection, and (c)
substantive due process. Suppose,
for example, that student Z, during
the course of his speech at a
campus rally protesting a recent
administrative appointment in the
University, knowing falsely accused
that appointee of having committed
grand larceny eight years earlier.
What action would lay against Z?

Clearly, Z has purposely lied;
though Z may well have understood
that lying would subject him to
disciplinary action under the Honor
Code, any such disciplinary action
taken against him would likely
constitute an affront to his first
amendment rights of freedom of
speech on each of the above
constitutional bases: (a) Continued
attendance at the University may
not be conditioned on his waiver of
those rights. (b) Because any
remedy under identical
circumstances involving a
non-student would necessarily be
confined to available civil remedies,
the, application here of a second
penalty - expulsion - is
discriminatory and a violation of
the equal protection clause. (c)
And, any Honor conviction secured
against Z would likely be reversed
on due process grounds as well:
possess certain fundamental civil
liberties, among them freedom to
speak, which can be exercised so
long as he does not substantially
interfere with, or pose a clear and
present danger to, the continued
operation of the University.

Thus, fundamental substantive
limitations exist which circumscribe
the ability of the Honor Committee
to regulate and discipline students.
It is high time that these
substantive does not threaten a
lawful function of the University,
its proscription is logically
inappropriate and constitutionally
impermissible.