Collegiate Times

Concerns with the Undergraduate Honor System were brought to the attention of Tech administrators after the resignation of the Chief Justice and three other Associate Justices.

Gregory Sagstetter, former Chief Justice of the Undergraduate Honor System, resigned his position on Jan. 23 because of “…concerns about the long-term viability of the Undergraduate Honor System,” that he stated in an e-mail to the administration.

The controversial appointment of the new Chief Justice, Amanda Beringer, prompted three other associate justices to quit and three others to threaten resignation if the decision was not overturned.
Sagstetter, who is also the undergraduate representative to the Board of Visitors, said the Honor System is over 12 months behind in investigating cases and that there are some students who graduated in May and have not received their diplomas because their case hasn’t come up yet.
Sagstetter said the University Honor System was disorganized and behind in cases when he first assumed the position of Chief Justice.

“I was still running cases from well over a year ago when I took the position,” Sagstetter said. “I had two under-trained associate justices to work with.”

The Honor System is disorganized and they are understaffed, Sagstetter said.

The judiciary committee needed more help with the amount of work that had to be done, he said.
“Because it’s so complicated, what we were asking for was a committee to be convened that were not involved with the Honor System to overlook what was going on,” Sagstetter said.

To fix the problem, the student judicial committee proposed developing this review committee to the provost’s office regarding improving the University Honors System.

“I wanted a committee (outside of the Honor System) to be formed to really study what happened,” Sagstetter said. “You need a lot of context and you need to get into the nitty gritty.”

The next day, there was a press release posted on the Tech website which claimed that the university would be taking a new approach to the judicial system.

“I believe that the news release was very, very questionable,” said Sagstetter. “It was quite clearly spinned.”

Also, there were many factual errors in the release itself. Sagstetter said the students review around 330 – 350 cases a year, not 200 as it is stated, and that the Philiosophy department will not be offering an independent study course on jurisprudence that associate justices can enroll in. The credit was discontinued after last semester.

The views of the students in the judiciary committee were not met when they proposed the committee, he said. The students recognized problems, which they voiced to the provost’s office, which the office promised to address.
“In the opinion of some associate justices, the promises from the provost’s office were not fulfilled,” Sagstetter said. “We were of the opinion that due process and equality for all students was on the decline. When we expressed an interest, and as we became more and more serious, we were more and more marginalized.”
Most of the other associate justices did not think the appointment of a new justice was constitutional, he said.

“When the chief justice resigned, right away Amanda Beringer was declared (to fill the position). We were told there would be a discussion for the position at a review,” said Victoria Wilson, associate justice for the Undergraduate Honor System. “A few of the associate justices expressed that they were unhappy with the decision and that they wanted an open election.”

In a meeting that took place Jan. 24, Virginia Tech Associate Provost Ron Daniel claimed to concur with a decision with Sagstetter in appointing Beringer in his place, but Sagstetter said he never suggested appointing Beringer. Sagstetter responded by sending a letter of clarification and was told he could appear before the Review Board to make his point clear, which he was later denied.

“This is a unique situation because (Sagstetter) resigned mid-term,” Wilson said. “It’s pretty vague. It’s usually the associate justice who fills the position, but in this case, there were two left. According to (Article VII of the Undergraduate Honor System Constitution), at least four students have to vote in a quorum. We didn’t vote on it so it is up for interpretation. It’s a difficult situation.”
At the Review Board, many of the associate justices left the room in protest.

“The system was doing well until this situation occurred,” Wilson said. “The reason why I am considering resigning along with many other associate justices is because of the extra constitutional nature of the last review board.”
At a meeting of the Commission on Student Affairs last Thursday, Feb. 1, the following resolution was passed:

“Be it resoled that the Commission on Student Affairs: 1) expresses its serious concern to the Provost and to the General Counsel over the current status of the Undergraduate Honor System and the possibility of its inability to function; and 2) requests of the Provost that a committee of students, faculty, and staff be formed immediately from those members of the Commission on Student Affairs and the Commission on Undergraduate Studies and Policies who are not involved in the Undergraduate Honor System to review and make recommendations regarding the present and future of the Undergraduate Honor System.”

Larry Hincker and Mark Owczarski, university spokesmen, both confirmed being aware of the resignation. Both could not confirm any reason for why Sagstetter resigned.

Mark McNamee, university provost and vice president for academic affairs; Ron Daniel, associate provost for undergraduate education; Alan

McDaniel, chair of the Undergraduate Honor System Review Board; Neal Kegley, operations manager of the Honor System; Zenobia Hikes, vice president for student affairs; and David Ford, vice provost; did not return multiple phone calls after office hours.
Sagstetter said as long as the students cannot help influence decisions with the administration, the system will fail.

“The system is never going to work if they don’t let it be student run,” Sagstetter said. “They can’t be interested in our labor, but not interested in our opinions.”