THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, February 7, 1995 TAG: 9502070335
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B7 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Virginia News
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: CHARLOTTESVILLE LENGTH: Short : 49 lines
The University of Virginia's board of visitors has asserted its control over the school's student-run honor system following the controversial retrial of a student expelled for cheating.
In a statement released Sunday, the board said the Honor Committee ``is accountable for its actions to the board, just as the board is accountable to the General Assembly.''
The statement also said the honor system is ``laden with ambiguities'' and needs to be restructured.
The system has been under close scrutiny since this summer, when undergraduate Christopher Leggett, expelled in 1992 for cheating on a test, was exonerated by the school's Honor Committee in a retrial.
Critics said the U.Va. administration pressured the Honor Committee to grant the rare retrial after Leggett threatened to file a lawsuit. Such intervention, those critics said, compromised the integrity of the honor system.
Board members and administration officials countered that Leggett's rights of due process had been compromised. They also said the Honor Committee made the final decision to retry the case.
The fallout from the Leggett case has continued through this year, leading to a series of meetings between U.Va. administrators and the Honor Committee and culminating in Sunday's statement.
Board members said state law required them to oversee the ``government and discipline'' of the students.
``The fact that we have ultimate responsibility is clear,'' said Robert G. Butcher Jr., a member of the board's Executive Committee. ``We want to keep it as a student-run, student-maintained system, but that doesn't mean we don't have ultimate responsibility. . . . We can't give that up even if we wanted to.''
U.Va. student Jason F. Robinson, chairman of the student panel, said the board has always had that authority.
``This still means student self-governance,'' Robinson said. ``The board would maintain a modicum of oversight. They told us they didn't want to get involved in particular cases.'' by CNB