University of Virginia Library

Fake Documents

Council also decided to drop its objection to
rule seven, which deals with fabrication or
alteration of University documents and conduct
affecting the University's "education interest."
The understanding reached is that the Honor
Committee will decide when they have jurisdiction
in a case to eliminate any overlapping
that may occur between them and the Judiciary
Committee. It was also understood that the
Judiciary Committee will interpret the University's
"education interest" in each case.

Regarding rule eight, council reworded their
former objection which suggested that the term
"disorderly conduct" be deleted. Mr Major
explained that most courts of law defined
disorderly conduct to mean conduct which
breaches the peace or damages the rights of
others. Council decided that rule eight include a
passage saying that disorderly conduct be determined
by a student's peers within the framework
of the Judiciary Committee.

Discussion over the second part of rule eight
concerning "lewd, indecent, or obscene conduct"
centered around the question of freedom
of expression. Council agreed to add to the rule
an explanation stating that in some circumstances
a student's expressions may be subject
to sanction.

Council did not change its original objection
to rule ten, which deals with failure to comply
with the directions of a University official.

Council changed its original objection to the
vagueness of phrase "University's pursuit of its
proper educational purpose" found in rule
eleven. They added the qualifying statement
that. "any violation of federal, state, or local
law which directly effects the University's
pursuit of its proper educational purpose" to
their objection.