Executive Committee Passes White Book Amendments

Executive Committee Passes White Book Amendments

Changes come after the White Book Review Committee’s triennial review process.

(Students attend their freshman year Honor System orientation. W&L University seal overlaid.)

The student government of Washington and Lee University recently amended The White Book, the document that governs the school’s vaunted Honor System. The changes came after recommendations from the student-run White Book Review Committee, which conducted a months-long review of the honor system through a student body survey, focus groups, and a town hall meeting.

Most passed amendments were procedural in nature. However, the student body Executive Committee (EC) eliminated language requiring students to be dropped from the jury pool for a Student Body Hearing if unwilling or unable to carry out the Single Sanction.

The original language had only applied when a student, convicted of an honor violation by the EC in a closed hearing, chose to appeal the verdict in an open trial with student jurors.

The Single Sanction — which requires students to leave the university if convicted of an honor violation — closely divides W&L’s students. Thirty-nine percent of current students support the Single Sanction, and 40 percent oppose it, with the remaining 21 percent unsure, according to survey results shared by the White Book Review Committee (WBRC).

Margaret Thompson, ‘24, who chaired the review committee, said during a town hall meeting that the modified language gives the chair of a Student Body Hearing discretion in jury selection. The new language no longer requires the chair to strike jurors for their views on the honor system, but the chair is not prevented from doing so.

“Every student is entitled to a jury of their peers, [who] have diverse opinions on the honor system itself,” Thompson said. “We thought that if someone did not feel like they would be able to carry out the Single Sanction, it should be up to the chair to decide whether or not they should still be included in the jury rather than being automatically eliminated,” she said.

No amendment eliminated the single sanction, nor did the review committee propose any such amendment.

But the review committee did suggest amendments to monitor the equitableness of the Honor System. They proposed collecting demographic records on all students accused of honor violations. Collected data would include “race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age/class year, marital status, disability, socioeconomic status, involvement in Greek Life, and gender.”

They further recommended either that the WBRC use the data in its triennial review of the system, or that after every fifteen closed hearings, the EC be required to create a student-run committee to examine the data and “provide recommendations regarding the equitable application of the system.”

“We have no data-driven evidence as to whether the system has had disparate impact on any group on campus, whether that be along the lines of race, membership in Greek life, gender, or different class years” said review committee member Carter Gleason, ‘27, when asked about the proposal’s rationale during the town hall meeting.

“We literally just have no idea whether the system is complicit in discrimination on campus, which can be extremely impactful because of the Single Sanction,” Gleason said.

“So this amendment is just allowing us to start the process of actually having concrete data to show us how the system is being applied to different groups on campus,” he said, data which would help future review committees “make appropriate changes based on the results.”

Sam Haines, ‘25, another review committee member, said that the status of the data collection proposal was pending approval from the university’s General Counsel and other administrators. 

“If that’s not something that we can do, then the outlook of this amendment would be a lot different,” Haines said.

The EC voted not to pass the demographic data amendment. “There are many reasons as to why that particular amendment did not pass,” said former EC president Martha Ernest, ‘24 in an email to The Spectator. “One reason had to do with protection of accused students and ensuring their anonymity in the Honor process,” she said.

Passed amendments include a change to the quorum requirement for honor matters. Now, “to the best ability under the President’s discretion,” four, rather than two, “members of the quorum for honor matters shall be members of the Student Body from the same school (undergraduate or law) as the accused student.”

Three law student representatives sit on the EC; any honor hearing for a law student may therefore include an unelected quorum-filler from the law school, unless an EC officer is also a law student.

Last year, the Student Election Commission (SEC)  proposed — and failed to pass — an amendment to the Student Body Constitution which would have added a fourth, at-large law school representative to the EC.

Another passed amendment modified language which charged students with preserving honor at W&L: instead of having “an affirmative duty to … preserve the Honor System” students now “have an affirmative duty to … preserve the community of trust.”

The EC also passed amendments empowering Hearing Advisors, who represent and advise students accused of honor violations. Hearing Advisors now must train any quorum-fillers, and the Head Hearing Advisor now helps select his or her successor.

The president of the EC now also must “bring any reported allegation to the attention of the Officers.” This was not previously a requirement.

Another newly adopted measure enables the EC to “vote to refer the case to the appropriate office or body” rather than merely choosing between dropping or investigating an accusation.

As part of the review process, the WBRC released selected results from their survey of approximately 950 W&L students and shared important takeaways from focus groups.

According to the survey, which was self-selected, 80 percent of students felt as though they had “moderate to full familiarity” with the Honor System, 81 percent felt that the Honor System extended beyond academic matters, and 45 percent felt uncertain as to whether their views were represented on the EC. Fifty percent of students trust the EC to carry out White Book procedures.

According to the WBRC report, “students who belong to minority racial groups, identify as non-heterosexual, or are not affiliated with Greek Life express diminished trust in the Executive Committee of the Student Body to administer the Honor System fairly and impartially.”

The report also noted that support for the Single Sanction is weaker amongst law students and students unaffiliated with Greek organizations.

Most students nonetheless felt that the Honor System works overall.

“It was fascinating to conduct an in-depth survey on student and faculty opinions of the Honor System,” WBRC chair Margaret Thompson told The Spectator of the report. “The committee and I loved seeing the student body's commitment and passion for our system.”