Collegiate Times

Since the public attention surrounding the resignation of five members of the honor system, the former associate justices and former chief justice are still concerned for the future of the system.

The former student justices are not pleased with the way the administration is handling the situation.

Last Tuesday, Associate Provost Ron Daniel and Vice Provost David Ford expressed regret that the students did not stay to help fix the situation.

However, the former justices are not convinced that the administration has done their best effort to help the Honor System.

In fact, there has been frustration and inquiry for the university to fix issues with the system as far back as 1999.

According to a final report issued by the Virginia Tech Undergraduate Honor System Report of Review Committee in 1999, the efficiency and effectiveness of the system was brought to the attention of the provost’s office:

“The last extensive review of the Undergraduate Honor System took place in 1989. Since that time, the Provost’s Office has become concerned that the present system may be in need of revision. On the one hand, it is said to be stretched beyond the capacity; on the other, it is felt by those involved to be insufficiently valued and understood by faculty and students,” according to the 1999 report.

The administration did not bring this report to the attention of the former 2006-07 justices, said Greg Sagstetter, former chief justice.

“The system needs to focus on academic rehabilitation, not punitive measures,” Sagstetter said. “We can see that from 1999, students and faculty have been saying this.”

The same report concluded, “From the Committee’s review of the system, it became clear that a significant number of faculty believe that the Honor System has not been working either efficiently or effectively. The fundamental problem is that it has been taking much too long to process a case under the present system. Some faculty will not send a case forward because they believe the system is ineffective … The question may legitimately be asked whether Virginia Tech’s current Honor System sends an appropriate or desirable message, and there are some faculty who find the current system, with its military-school undertones, distasteful and counter-productive.”

The report also went on to suggest a new process for reviewing cases, reducing the number of faculty counselors involved because student involvement had become too diluted, considering the effectiveness of the Review Board, encourage space needs, more support staff and equipment and an increased operation budget.

“They’ve been waiting for this to glaze over since 1999,” Lindsey Aitcheson, former associate justice said. “This is going to come up periodically and often until it’s resolved. Academic integrity isn’t something you can glaze over.”

“These needs seem to never have been addressed since that Review Board,” Sagstetter said. “When we took over at the beginning of last semester and cases as old as two years, nothing had changed in seven years. We were still withholding degrees from May, two-year-old cases. Is that a working Honor System? Just imagine not knowing whether you can graduate or not.”

Another report, submitted in March 2001 from the Undergraduate Honor System Working Group, released recommendations to streamline and strengthen the present undergraduate honor system.

The former justices tried to make up for backlog, Aitcheson said.

“We were working for free, pulling all-nighters upstairs,” she said. “We had a backlog of hundreds of hundreds of cases. At the very end of the semester, we had cases from 2004.”

Before Sagstetter became chief justice, he brought up concerns with the provost’s office.

“We took the position, being promised that we would get the support we needed,” Sagstetter said.

In an interview conducted last week, Daniel explained that a Review Board was suggested to the justices in order to fix the problems, but the justices thought a new review would take too long.

“Unless you give us budget support, I’m going to resign,” Sagstetter said. “We need budget support; we need space, stipends for justices. If we don’t get kids in the door, how can we get through this? Week after week, I would have appointments, and they would keep stringing me along. Ron Daniel explains they were going to give us a formal review, so we would just have to stick it out. Why are we getting a new review, when we have one that is seven years old and hasn’t been carried out?”

Daniel also explained that he halted the review board after Sagstetter made his suggestions more urgent.

“It was at the point that they said, oh ok, I guess we won’t do the review right now, we’ll give you some of the things we promised. An emphasis on some,” Sagstetter said.

The justices were not pleased with the stipends they were given.

“These were supposed to be more than just an incentive (to work),” said Amy Ballard, former associate justice. “It was a way for us to continue doing what we were doing. I was in the office more than I was in my dorm room.”

“We asked them if we could have parking passes, because we were schlepping back and forth all the time,” Aitcheson said. “What they did was they gave us three-hour parking passes, it just wasn’t enough. Sometimes even panels run up to five hours.”

In hreference to the jurisprudence course that was supposed to be offered by the Philosophy department, Aitcheson explained that the department was not interested in it because of the problems facing the system.

Although the reason for the associate justices resigning was partially because they felt the appointment of Amanda Beringer was unconstitutional, they still recognized the problems that Sagstetter resigned as a result of.

“We were going to stick around to fight what Greg was fighting for, and there were a few things we needed to get ironed out first like the chief justice situation and they just would not hear us. They silenced us during discussions,” Aitcheson said.

The former justices cared a lot about their work for the benefit of the student body, said Jake Rosenthal, former associate justice.

“The reason we were around was because we cared a lot about the system,” Rosenthal said. “We wanted to defend the honor of the degree we are going to get. That was what my passion was behind. When we got no support for something we were doing for free, and when we tried to get support, we got doors slammed in our faces.”

The appointment of Beringer is still an issue with the former justices.

“They used my name to get this girl in position,” Sagstetter said. “They are essentially just trying to use their muscle to put the girl in that position.”

At the last Review Board, held on Jan. 26, Sagstetter was denied entry into the room if he spoke about the allegedly unconstitutional use of his name to appoint Beringer as chief justice.

The associate justices were concerned about the appointment and felt that they were not heard. There was a vote to determine whether or not a new chief justice should be appointed.

They became rash with their decision and they pushed for an election immediately between Beringer and (I),” Aitcheson said. “At that point everyone was really really upset.”

“The one that they did appoint, was the one who fit their agenda,” Jake Rosenthal, former associate justice said.

Because of their decisions, former associate justice Victoria Wilson resigned last Wednesday.

“In the article published on Thursday, the administration suggested we sit down and talk to them,” Wilson said. “I gave a threatening resignation. Despite the media coverage, the complaints, the CSA recommendation and resignations, no action has been taken. Therefore, I resigned (Feb.7).”

Moreover, the justices were displeased with the university representatives’ comments that were printed last Wednesday about not being able to stay and cooperate with the administration.

“What does Marc Owczarski know about Ut Prosim?” Sagstetter said.

The former justices care a lot about the honor system, Rosenthal said.

“We were extremely passionate about the system, and we still are,” he said. “We are here to defend the student body and we have nothing personal we can gain from doing more work or less work. All we wanted to do was fight for what the constitution said. We didn’t have anything to personally gain. We fought as much as we could to the last resort before resigning. That was the last tool we had in the box. Our resignations did what they were supposed to do and got whatever was going on into Burruss. Nothing would’ve happened if we didn’t do this.”

Another point of hreform the former justices wanted to fix was the damaged relationship between the international student community and the system.

“We had an awful relationship with Cranwell and international students for good reason,” Sagstetter said. “I took a course last semester just so I could get in the door and talk to administrators at Cranwell.”

The problem was that not enough attention was given to cases involving international students, who may not be familiar with honor laws in the U.S.

Ballard recalls a moment where some of the justices introduced themselves to the Council of International Student Organizations, and they were laughed at.

The administration has made it clear that the honor system is working just fine, but the former justices want to see the student body take more action to fix the problems that they identify.

“They’ve been ignoring us since 1999, at the expense of the students,” Sagstetter said. “The entire student body should be furious. I seriously question the ability of the system as it stands to fairly process the cases that it currently has with the amount of attention and integrity that those cases deserve. This is an unjust system. And the university’s motto demands immediate action.”