Open Up “Open” Hearings
Open Up “Open” Hearings
We must address the needlessly and self-defeatingly secretive process.
(A picturesque view of Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark. | SOURCE: Washington and Lee University)
Open Hearings are the final step in the lengthy process of an honor investigation at Washington and Lee, but how “open” are they really? The White Book outlines the procedures for handling Honor Violations, allowing us to take a closer look at these open hearings — and their flaws.
An Open Hearing, also known as a Student Body Hearing, occurs only as the culmination of a comprehensive honor process. The proceedings prior to an Open Hearing, laid out in Articles VII to IX of the White Book, include an investigation process, formal charging and a Closed Hearing before the Executive Committee. If a student is found guilty of an Honor Violation in the Closed Hearing, he or she may either withdraw, which results in the student leaving the school, or appeal the verdict, which takes the case to an Open Hearing.
If a student chooses to take their case to an Open Hearing, they will be judged by a jury of 12 students, which can be law students or undergraduates. According to the White Book: “The Student Body Hearing shall be open only to members of the Washington and Lee community, except that family members of the appealing student may be present.”
The White Book lists two locations where open trials can occur: the Moot Court Room in Sydney Lewis Hall and Lee Chapel. Lee Chapel has a capacity of 520 persons, but the Moot Court Room holds only 150. This means that if the defendant chooses the Moot Court Room as the trial location, fewer than 7 percent of the 2,286 students at the University can attend, excluding faculty, staff, and family members of the accused.
This logistical issue impedes community knowledge of an Open Hearing. Yet, the White Book goes a step further, providing that “[m]embers of the Washington and Lee community are not permitted to share information about the Student Body Hearing outside the community.” The White Book continues: “Disseminating information about the Student Body Hearing outside the Washington and Lee community may be considered a breach of confidentiality.”
Because of this, a student who disseminates information about an Open Hearing outside of the “community of trust” could be convicted of an Honor Violation themselves. Hence, only a fraction of students are able to attend an Open Hearing, and those who do attend are discouraged from discussing the proceedings.
In terms of recordings, The White Book states that recordings from Closed Hearings can be taken “solely for use at the Student Body Hearing.” The White Book does not comment on recordings in Open Hearings; however, according to an email sent to students by Alex Miller, the vice president of Student Affairs, such recordings are not permitted at open hearings. This ban on recordings is nowhere to be found in the White Book, and this administrative interference raises serious questions about the student-run nature of the Honor System.
In addition, there is a more fundamental problem with barring transparency for such events. In theory, the strict confidentiality of open hearings protects students who are wrongfully convicted in a closed hearing and subsequently acquitted in an Open Hearing. However, this system unnecessarily prioritizes privacy over transparency—a destructive philosophy that undermines the very purpose of these supposedly “Open” Hearings.
Instead of imposing stringent restrictions on what information can be shared about Open Hearings, the Executive Committee should focus on keeping records confidential during the closed portions of the honor proceedings and allow free exchange of information once the student decides to take the matter to an open hearing. If a student desires to avoid the publicity that comes with an open hearing, they can simply accept the ruling of their closed hearing, even if that means withdrawing from the university.
Open Hearings are a cornerstone of the W&L Honor System, and the transparency they provide is essential to protecting the community of trust we all enjoy. When that transparency is disparaged, the honor and trust we love are under grave threat.
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.