<p>KDBuddy, please don't accuse me of spreading rumors; I have released no details about the case. You are certainly defaming the accuser by calling her a "liar" and "evil." All I know is that from my experience with the accused, SHE is in no way or form credible, as I have witnessed lies about ridiculous, unimportant things in the past. I'm not saying anymore as I feel it would be inappropriate to discuss in a public forum.</p>
<p>And, as I said, I did not jump to conclusions-- I said as of now, I have an opinion based on many facts, and I am willing to reevaluate that opinion once someone presents evidence countering what I already know.</p>
<p>Morgan- I know for a fact that you had no connection with the accused. SHE has barely ever acknowledged you or spoke with you at length. Please just get your facts straight and then post your feelings.</p>
<p>And as for saying you have spoke to people and have heard of accounts close to the case- I know for a FACT you have not talked to any of them, because then you would have spoke to me. You have only spoke to the accuser who obviously would have a different take on this entire case.</p>
<p>Let's try to end the finger pointing and name calling now-- but I will clarify for your sake-- I am best friends with a few of her best friends, and apart from me witnessing some less-than-honorable things, I have heard incriminating evidence directly from those who still consider themselves to be her friends.</p>
<p>I also feel quite uncomfortable posting anything more in this thread because my anonymity has been clearly compromised, and I would regret for something I said on here to be taken out of context within the school. </p>
<p>So, my official, on the record statement is this: I have no personal connection to the accused, and my comments should not be taken as facts. Furthermore I do not wish at all to defame the accused in any way, shape or form, by anything I say pertaining to the case or her personal character; such statements are only necessary to counter the defamation of the accuser's and people on the EC's character.</p>
<p>Morgan, they're not out to "get" people. It's when they think that there's a possibility that a mistake they made can be exposed is when they get ugly. </p>
<p>As for their intentions, yes, their goal is in part is to protect the single sanction (and personally, my problem was with the single sanction, not the honor system at large). But their goal is primarily to WIN. They want a jury they can win with, not a jury that's representational. These people are human, they have self-interest.</p>
<p>wnalum-- I understand that your problem was with the single sanction-- to my understanding, that has been the policy since its inception. One strike, and you're out. Thus by the EC wanting to protect the single sanction, they want to protect the honor system as a whole.</p>
<p>Morgan- Thats correct. But for whatever reason they decided to change, since its inception, the policy that "withdrew" would be changed to "dismissed" if a student decided to go to an open trial and was found guilty. With the jury "stacked" and the short period of time any accused student is given, I would not doubt, even an innocent student, would withdraw.</p>
<p>Morgan - About your post above saying that "he did commit an honor violation by lying." That's exactly the screwed up mentality that the EC has. Lying, cheating and stealing are not honor violations. Honor violations are honor violations. Read the white book. </p>
<p>For example, when you tell a friend they look great even though they look crappy, is that an honor violation? No, but it certainly is a lie. That's problem with the Katz case - they weren't judging an honor violation, they were judging a lie.</p>
<p>wnlalum-- I understand and agree completely; I was simply contesting KDBuddy's contention about applying the case to a real-world court. </p>
<p>I do know, from my Concept of Honor class, that Lee never wanted to codify Honor. He believed it was something that should be voluntary, and should be applied to all aspects of one's life. He expelled students for fighting, for being drunk, etc.-- things that today would obviously never result in an honor violation. It's quite obvious that many students only apply the Honor System to their lives as students, and fail to apply it to life not directly related to academia, which is unfortunate. </p>
<p>That being said, the accused was accused of something that is clearly an honor violation-- it's nothing like the Gabe Katz case. Her actual guilt apparently remains to be seen, but the nature of the accusation is not at all like the Katz case.</p>
<p>Morgan - So you're saying just because it's been around since the beginning we should keep it? I suppose, according to your definition of the sanctity of tradition at W&L, we should go back to the days where there were no women, no minorities, and there was an "Assimilation Committee" that regulated whether or not people said hello to each other and whether they were appropriately dressed. </p>
<p>My point is - and this opinion has grown stronger in age - that 18-22 year olds under no circumstances should have the authority (moral and conferred) to have that kind of impact on someone's life. The thing that bothers me about the whole process is that there's no attempt at rehabilitation or getting people who have made mistakes to admit fault - it's just "you screw up and get caught, you're outta here." Imagine if everyone who ever committed a misdameanor or felony was forever exiled from the state or city they committed the offense in. That's basically what the Honor System does. There are cases where exile is deserved, but the idea that there is no such thing as rehabilitation or the possibility of personal change is outrageous. Again, I encourage you to reflect on this several years from now when you've seen friends forced out for petty or questionable transgressions.</p>
<p>"That's exactly the screwed up mentality that the EC has. Lying, cheating and stealing are not honor violations."</p>
<p>Am I misunderstanding you, wnlalum?</p>
<p>Are you claiming that lying, cheating and stealing and NOT honor violations? </p>
<p>The following is from W&L's website. Note #1: </p>
<p>The centrality of honor at Washington and Lee is contained in its Honor System, a legacy of Robert E. Lee. In accord with the University's strong and longstanding commitment to student autonomy, the Board of Trustees has granted to students the privilege of overseeing the administration of the Honor System. This privilege includes the responsibilities of (1) defining dishonorable acts (now defined in terms of the categories of lying, cheating, and stealing, and other breaches of trust); (2) investigating and judicially managing honor hearings; (3) writing and revising the White Book, the Honor System policy and procedures manual; and (4) reporting directly to the Board of Trustees on the administration of the Honor System. The sole penalty for an Honor System violation is dismissal from the University. These responsibilities are administered by the Student Executive Committee, a group of students elected annually by their peers.</p>
<p>Morgan - Sounds good. I don't know the fact of this case either other than what I've read here, but EC members are not the same people when it comes to open trials. </p>
<p>By the way, don't take what Sessions says for gospel. Yeah, he knows a lot about honor, but it's a very "ivory tower" view. Once you get into the real world - where you're confronted by dishonorable people everyday - that's when you finally learn what honor means and how it's practiced. I just hope with your sense of idealism you don't plan on heading into any field that would follow a C-school degree (banking, law, accounting, politics, etc.).</p>
<p>wnalum, i feel you're being undully pessimistic. are you claiming that it is impossible to live a life of honor following paths like banking, law, accounting, politics, etc., or that it is the exception rather than the rule? there are many virtuous men and women in all of these professions, and labelling them as intrinsically dishonorable pursuits is borderline irresponsible.</p>
<p>wnlalum -- please take my comments with a grain of salt. I really agree with you and am simply playing devil's advocate. Sessions' text on honor that he's working on is very good, though, and you should give it a read. Let me know if you want me to ask him to send you a working copy. It doesn't try to take any stance on honor, rather it gives facts about its many conceptions.</p>
<p>I really am not an idealist; I'm quite a practical thinker and can't stand listening to idealistic, impractical people (usually of the liberal persuasion) say things like "well, don't you agree that the world would be a better place with no guns?" etc. I'm majoring in Politics and plan on going to Law School after that, and I am certainly prepared for the real-world implications of honor.</p>
<p>No, you're not misunderstanding me. Lying, cheating and stealing are not honor violations. They are the most common examples of types of honor violations. Only "violations of the community's trust" (if I remember my white book correctly) are honor violations. Look in the white book. </p>
<p>As for what's up on the W&L website, I don't care. Again, show me what's in the white book. </p>
<p>As for examples - </p>
<p>1) A person is drunk and want to drive home. He is still aware enough that he gave you his keys earlier to ask for them. You don't want your him to drive home drunk, so you say you can't find them. Lie? Yes. Honor violation? No. </p>
<p>2) Your girlfriend is a freshman and you go to see her while you're in the dining hall. You don't swipe your card but just go sit down with her without food. At the end of the meal, she offers you half of her banana because she isn't going to finish it. Stealing (from dining services)? Yes. Honor violation? No (but someone had gotten convicted of something like this in the past).</p>
<p>3) In writing a paper you misunderstand the teacher's strict interpreation of citing paraphrased works. You had done many papers this way before for other classes, but this teacher's definition of what constitutes plagarism is different. Cheating? Well, technically, you plagarized under the teacher's definition, so yes. Honor Violation? No (although, again, I knew a student kicked out for this). </p>
<p>There's a difference between an honor violation and lying, cheating and stealing. There's was actually a lot debate during my time about whether sexual assaults constituted honor violations - and although they certainly were, they were handled by a different organization. What about doing something exceptionally racist or hateful that's not "lying, cheating or stealing?" It's an Honor System, not an Honor Code.</p>
<p>Polo - My point to Morgan was that these are professions where dishonorable people tend to drift to. It's not a condemnation of entire professions. If you're an idealist, you'll be happier as a teacher than a profession where you'll have to deal with people who practice pretty unsavory livings.</p>
<p>wnlalum -- it's funny you say that, because I never thought I would want to be a teacher, but more and more I feel I would be very happy doing it. And I would be a much-needed conservative voice in the liberal world of academia. Not that I would brainwash my students or anything; I just wouldn't enforce political correctness to the extremes it's been taken to today.</p>