Open Hearings Jeopardize the Honor System
Open Hearings Jeopardize the Honor System
We must reform Open Hearings before their flaws irreparably damage the Honor System's popularity and integrity.
(Washington and Lee School of Law’s Moot Courtroom, one of two venues for Open Hearings, during an event. | SOURCE: Author)
The rules, regulations and requirements around “Open” Hearings are a mess that needs to be promptly addressed by the White Book Review Committee or the Executive Committee.
An Open Hearing, or a Student Body Hearing, is the venue of last resort for someone accused of an Honor Violation under the Honor System. Only reached by someone already found guilty in an Executive Committee hearing, a student may appeal to an Open Hearing to be judged by 12 of their peers, but risks having their academic record reflect that they were “Dismissed” from Washington and Lee.
While great in theory, serious structural problems with Open Hearings undermine the fairness and justice of the Honor System and suppress support for it, jeopardizing a core aspect of what makes W&L unique.
First, let's look at the unnecessary secrecy involved in the process. The White Book, the rules and regulations of the Honor System, bars sharing information about Open Hearings outside of the W&L community. Yet it does so in a needlessly subjective way, creating a host of unnecessary negative ramifications.
“Disseminating information about the Student Body Hearing outside the Washington and Lee community may be considered a breach of confidentiality,” the White Book provides. In what circumstances would it be “considered” as such? Is there any information that someone could share that would constitute a breach, and some that would not?
While this is representative of the lamentable subjectivity of today’s gutted White Book, it is hardly the only problem with this sentence.
Who, precisely, are members of the “community of trust”? What about the alumni, many of whom donate lavish amounts of money to the school, or others whose payment for inflated tuition should basically be considered a donation?
This question is hardly rhetorical: Spectator polling of students, faculty and alumni shows different conceptions of who constitutes the W&L community. Four-fifths of polled alumni thought they were part of the “community of trust,” and while two-thirds of students agreed, just over 40% of faculty thought so.
(W&L Crest. | SOURCE: Washington and Lee University)
Differing definitions of the “community of trust” also surfaced in the debate over whether undergraduates and law students belong to the same community. Over 80% of alumni answered affirmatively, and three-fourths of faculty did, but fewer than two-thirds of students agreed.
This lack of transparency — barring outside discussion of Open Hearings and banning recordings — could help fuel salacious rumors. We live on a small campus, where news of an Open Hearing would travel quickly throughout — it is not as if the defendant's name wouldn't be included in such rumors, and various falsehoods or misunderstandings could be right there with it.
If the defendant is confident enough in their innocence to appeal to an Open Hearing, would they not be fine with the whole community knowing the complete truth of the case?
Besides, Open Hearings serve as a temperature check of the Honor System, not just for students, but also for faculty, staff and alumni. The Honor System is one of the most essential, unique qualities of student life at W&L, and people would rightfully care about the outcome of one, especially if it would implicate the health of the Honor System writ large.
Yet, right now, hardly anyone can attend an Open Hearing, they are pressured not to talk about them, and they cannot access any information about them.
But that’s not the end of it. Why are jurors in Open Hearings not forced to swear to uphold the Single Sanction if they find the defendant guilty of violating “the community’s trust”?
For decades, Chairs of Student Body Hearings were forced to dismiss jurors in Open Hearings that would not affirm their willingness to invoke the Single Sanction in cases of Honor Violations. This simple, common-sense provision was included in the White Book for decades, but the last White Book Review Committee unceremoniously ripped it out in 2024.
Are we not opening ourselves up to the potential for blatant jury nullification without such an affirmation? Like many changes at W&L that occurred during our period of cultural and historical self-immolation, it is time to take a hard look at reversing this mistake.
The Honor System, a core factor in what makes Washington and Lee a one-of-a-kind place to attend college, has been done a disservice by an Open Hearing process that is profoundly flawed. It is time to change that.
The opinions expressed in this magazine are the authors’ own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.
