<p>Oh and Jeepmom and Motherdear, it sound like neither of you actually went to W&L. So even if your kid or husband went to school with an honor code, you don't have the right to claim to be all-knowing.</p>
<p>it's a whole series of them. go to the website, go to "back issues" and then April 1, 2004.</p>
<p>First off, JeepMOM spent four years as a W&L mom. She has much longer and likely deeper ties to and knowledge of the traditions and systems W&L than any of us freshman.</p>
<p>Secondly, without any evidence of wrongdonig except the words of a couple of disgruntled anonymous posters who do not reveal their connection to the case, I see no reason not to believe the EC hanled the case fairly. I do not pretend to have any ties or knowledge of the case, but unless I see some proof to the contrary, I have no reason not to trust the EC. Articles from 2004 aren't enough, the EC has changed since then, and it is impossible to prove that there was any wrongdoing then either. There was an opportunity for me to be convinced otherwise in an open hearing, but with the accused choosing to withdraw, I see no reason to believe in the student's innocence - why would an innocent person unfairly convicted by the EC not go up in front of an impartial jury of their peers?</p>
<p>As for accusations of a tainted jury pool, I cannot believe that. The White Book has strict guidelines for jury selection:
1. The names of seventy-five students are chosen at random by the Registrar.
2. Prospective jurors are interviewed in the order their names appear on the list being asked:
a) Do you know any of the facts of this case?
b) Do you know the accused personally?
c) Is your relationship with the accused, the advocates, any witness, or the Chair such that it may affect your ability to be impartial?
d) Do you have any opinions about the Executive Committee which would inhibit your ability to be impartial?
e) Do you have any opinions about the Honor System which woudl inhibit your ability to render a decision based solely on the facts?
f) Do you believe in single sanction?
3. The Chair shall strike for cause any prospective juror whose knowledge of the case or the accused, or whose opinions about the Honor System (including opposition to single sanction) may prejudice the juror's decision and interfere with a decision based on the facts alone.
4. After there are fifteen prospective jurors who have been interviewed and not struck for cause, the accused and the EC can strike two jurors each.
5. Interviews continue until there are sixteen prospective jurors, and the accused and the EC can strike one juror each.
6. Of the remaining fourteen names (listed in order that they came up from the registrar) the first twelve on jurors and the last two are alternates.
7. No more than four of the fourteen may be from any one class.</p>
<p>Sounds strict and fair to me. Also there is a process to amend the white book. A member of the EC, any student who can get fifty signatures of current students, or the White Book Review Committee (convening every 3 years) can propose amendments to the white book.</p>
<p>How many times has the White Book been amended?</p>
<p>I thank you Dima.............. and excellent post ^^ BTW</p>
<p>The following at least gives an idea of how the EC works - and how often - not all students presented with a charge are expelled - actually the numbers are quite low............ so somehow the system does work - just like american justice - which it is based on. Maybe this recent experience will be a wake up call to those who really don't understand the system - and the potentials</p>
<p>Summary of EC Honor Activity for 04-05 academic year</p>
<p>Investigations: 11</p>
<p>Withdrawals while being Investigated: 0</p>
<p>Withdrawals in Face of a Closed Hearing: 1</p>
<p>Closed Hearings: 4</p>
<p>Guilty Verdicts in Closed Hearings: 1</p>
<p>Not Guilty Verdicts in Closed Hearings: 3</p>
<p>Student Body Hearings: 0</p>
<p>and LAXER - I have never claimed to be all knowing - but I have been well informed.</p>
<p>JeepMOM- you are a mother of a alumni- you are by far not "well informed".</p>
<p>Dima- The EC has not changed from 2004. The Chair of the case was an ex-EC Vice President, he served with many of the current EC members... and he is supposed to be impartial? I would highly doubt that.</p>
<p>Dima, you seem like an okay guy, but your age and experience with the EC shows in that post. I'll just say that I had very similar opinions as a freshman. I was full of awe and reverence too. Give it sometime. Wait until 3-4 friends get kicked out. </p>
<p>As for it being a loaded jury, if you have any issue with the EC or any qualms about the Honor System/single sanction, you can not sit on the jury. That is to say, it's not a representational jury of peers. There is no diversity of experience or point of view when it comes to the Honor System. It's a jury that is in lock-step with the views of the EC. It's a system built around protecting the EC's point of view. You're telling me you don't see how that's not fair? </p>
<p>The EC doesn't change. The committee that was there in 2004 is marginally different (if at all different) from the one that sits on it today. Again, grow up a little, see a few more people get screwed, and I'd be surprised if you don't change your tune.</p>
<p>Moreover, over 50 jurors were called in for a jury of only 12. Jurors were dismissed for various uncalled and bias reasons. It was not until the accused realized that the jury pool was unjust, that the accused decided to withdraw. The accused wished to fight it out- hence the open hearing- but when placed in numerous of unjust circumstances- the accused withdrew. Not only that, but the EC became hostile and unwilling to compromise. The accused was given 48 hours notice on the date of the opening hearing- and her fate. The accused honor advocates were ONLY GIVEN LESS THAN 48 HOURS TO PREPARE FOR THE CASE, while the EC had investigated for over two weeks. How is that fair? In the real world, the EC would have been laughed out of court.</p>
<p>One last point, I love Washington and Lee University, and I would never leave. But the EC MUST change. The honor system looks great on paper, but in reality, is outrageous. I am not the only person on campus that is deeply hurt by the EC's horrific (to say the least) decision.</p>
<p>Is there a blog or something on this from somebody who can shed a little light?</p>
<p>Well, I can see if I can get the accuser to post on here. The problem is that she can't give any specific details. All I can say is that from several accounts very close to the case, the accused is guilty of an honor violation, and the accused has had a history of perpetual lying in the past. Until someone presents to me credible evidence to counter the already very credible evidence against the accused, I keep my initial judgment.</p>
<p>And wnlalum-- you obviously have much more experience than any of us do with regards to the EC, but I have to disagree with you saying "it's a system that's built around protecting the EC's point of view." It seems to me that it's built around protecting the single-sanction nature of the Honor System, which the EC happens to believe in. Considering there have been over 10 cases this year and only two were found guilty, it is unfair to assume that the EC is out to get people.</p>
<p>This should shed some light...</p>
<p>***The following quotes were taken from the 3/16/05 issue of The Trident. Students should be informed that the events described in the article titled Revisiting familiar ghosts of the Honor System's Past are happening once again, with the student body none the wiser.
-On March 17, 2004, I lost faith in the Honor System. That's the night when the Executive Committee found Gabe Katz guilty of an honor violation. Most students who knew Katz, including myself, learned of the decision shortly thereafter and believed the EC's decision was horrific.</p>
<p>-My trust in the Honor System had been violated.</p>
<p>-Once Katz announced his consideration of an open trial, the EC turned fiercely hostile and defensive. Two of Katz's character witnesses explained to me the abusive questioning tactics and explicit threats against their University standing if they talked to others informally, much less student media.</p>
<p>-Katz was given 72 hours to prepare for the most important trial of his life and the student body was given less than 24 hours notice of the open trial. All pens, pads, and recording devices were banned.</p>
<p>-When Katz realized the trial was rigged following jury selection, he withdrew. Students were confused and livid. The Ring-Tum Phi and The Trident put out a special issue the next day exposing flawed aspects of the trial process. There, the papers exposed the EC's incompetence and lack of accountability.</p>
<p>-The fury from the student body continued to die in time. A new EC and three summer months away from Lexington returned the W&L student body to its natural state - apathy. But three amendments were proposed upon the EC's return. The first amendment, proposed by Brett Kirwan '04, didn't make it past a "first reading". It would have required guilty verdicts to be unanimous. The second, proposed by Kelly Jo Larsen '05, didn't make it past a "first reading". The last, proposed by Caley Anderson '06, made it to a vote after the proposal was reworded by Thomas Worthy and Wheeler Sparks. This amendment said that the EC should make a student's removal from the University either a "dismissal" or "withdrawal" - not "dismissed" for an open trial, and "withdrew" for a closed trial. Apparently, the EC didn't like removing this incentive against going to open trial.</p>
<p>You see, people think Gabe Katz was the most horrendous case in recent history. But before Gabe Katz, there was the student kicked out for taking a small piece of food off his girlfriend's plate without paying.</p>
<p>This ghost will return again and again until the student body decides to stop it. The only way to stop it is by eliminating those who perpetrate these injustices. If not, years from now we will lament the newest ghosts of the Honor System's past.</p>
<hr>
<p>-For further reading, go to thetrident.org and search for the following very important articles:</p>
<p>Ex-student tells all, EC: Are You Accountable, Dear Dr.Burish, Outraged? Well join the club</p>
<p>Are you next?...Are you sure of that?, and Going Gray: EC moves to open trial</p>
<p> .actually, just search Honor Trial and read through every article related to an open trial. I assure you what you find will be both surprising and appalling. </p>
<p>Say hello to the New Ghosts</p>
<p>and demand answers from the EC.</p>
<p>I received the above in the form of a flyer that has been posted around campus.</p>
<p>Morgan- No offense but the accuser is not by any way or form credible. She is seen/ known on campus as a LIAR and EVIL by many accounts. As I have heard from many jurors, jurors were dismissed on the spot if they had negative feelings about the accuser. If that is so, how is it possible to get a jury of the accused peers? Tell me that and please stop ruining the accused good name and stop spreading rumors.</p>
<p>KDBuddy - I would really encourage you to stay motivated into next year. There's a tendency for people to get apathetic because they realize the EC is not going to change anything (which is why no one votes...or at least they didn't vote when I was there). </p>
<p>If I could offer one piece of advice - all politics is local. Get in the ear of the person from your class on the committee and let them know you're angry. If they feel threatened enough that they won't get re-elected, they'll push the EC from inside to make changes.</p>
<p>KDBuddy, I think we've all already heard of the Katz case... I've read the article myself. It was definitely ridiculous considering the circumstances; however, if you want to talk about stuff in strictly legal terms, by techincal definition, he did commit an honor violation by lying.</p>
<p>Morgan- please talk to Peter Kyle, a third party, who has credible evidence. Then post your feelings. Do not jump to conclusions before you have had a chance to discover all of the facts.</p>
<p>wnlalum- I will. I promise I will not get apathetic until I graduate- but even then I will make my voice heard and all the voices of reason in the Washington and Lee community.</p>