Dear Students, Student Judicial Board, and Deans of Students,
I am a senior at Davidson College and the current Chair of our Honor Council. While the affairs of Davidson and Wesleyan are two separate matters, I felt compelled to write to you after recently reading two articles in The Argus about your ongoing debate over appropriate standards of evidence. I speak only for myself, but I believe what I will say below represents the collective sentiments of Davidson students, faculty, and administrators.
In deciding non-admitted guilt cases, Davidson applies a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence, which, as I’m sure you know, rests between the standards of “preponderance of evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Having led numerous deliberations in my time as Chair, I believe the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence is the most just of these three choices.
To me, that standard means “compelling, but not damning.” It demands a clarity of conviction about someone’s guilt which corresponds to the severity of sanctioning any honor violation entails. Yet, it also recognizes the limited evidence a college can muster in prosecuting a case. For this latter reason, I find the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard unwieldy. At Davidson, there is rarely physical evidence of a violation; as such, circumstantial evidence and witness accounts are taken very seriously (including from students, as they too are honor-bound in their accusations). As such, with little physical evidence other than ITS records in certain academic cases, the highest standard of evidence, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” would be unworkable in an academic setting, and I think, frankly, too permissive.
Yet, given the severity of marking an individual as dishonorable and considering further punitive punishment, I believe the “preponderance” standard used in civil cases in the United States is also insufficient. Honor council cases are more like criminal cases than civil cases. They don’t concern questions of monetary damage, such as in civil lawsuits, but instead cut to the very essence of the morality and judgment of an individual. Moreover, the implications of being convicted, as in a criminal court, involve substantial non-monetary costs to the convicted individual. As such, the “preponderance” standard, in complex cases, seems too meager of a standard of evidence considering the gravity of honor violations and their sanctioning.
I am sure that Wesleyan’s current Honor Board system works very well. Further, I would add that it is rarely the case that the difference between “preponderance…” and “clear and convincing” affects the outcome of a case. For that reason, it would not be tragic if Wesleyan maintained its current system, which is a good one. However, I believe Wesleyan’s current system could be made more just. For reasons outlined above, I believe the “clear and convincing” standard is the most suitably just measure of evidence on college campuses. It recognizes the limitations of evidence while also respecting the significance of honor code hearings.
Finally, this standard also pays homage to Western society’s faith in the dictum “innocent until proven guilty.” This profound affirmation of individual dignity, one that Davidson’s Code explicitly mentions in its justification of the “clear and convincing” standard, necessitates a high standard of evidence. In my experience, the “clear and convincing” standard best respects this vital presumption of innocence.
For these reasons, I cannot help but recommend this higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence. Far from bedeviling us, it is a standard that has served Davidson very well. While it may not always make cases easier to decide, questions of honor are not questions of expedience. I’ve presided over hearings that have ranged from 2 hours to 11 hours. Justice, as you all know, is a tricky thing. But, there is no higher end than our pursuit of it.
If you have any questions about Davidson’s honor system or my comments above, I would be happy to speak further with you as a group or individually (717-422-6972; jegibson@davidson.edu).
Finally, I’m very heartened Wesleyan is having this discussion; questions of honor are worthy of our time, our questioning, and our debates.
Gibson is Chair of the Davidson Honor Council and a member of the Davidson class of 2011.
Leave a Reply