OCR::/Vol_110/WLURG39_RTP_20070405/WLURG39_RTP_20070405_001.2.txt
 

   

‘THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007

 

1!!’ IEE

the

   WASHINGTON"AN LEE UNIvEPs1*Tr 

  THE RI

SFUDEHTS

EIIIAS

S IICE IE9?

 
      
 

M PHI.

VOLUME c-x, NUMBER 

THE WEEKLY INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER AT WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY

 

I RANUNN /Staffph

 

First open hearing in twelve years ends with cheers,
screams and hugs when jury clears student of charges

By Nlna Coolidge and
Jacob Gelger

TRIDENT C0—EDlTOR-|N—CH|EF
AND PHI MANAGING EDITOR

Lee Chapel exploded with
cheers yesterday at 8:15 p.m.
when Open Hearing Chairman
Adam Hull said “not guilty.”

Those words were preced-
ed by a nine-hour hearing and
less than two hours of delib-
eration by the jury of 12 stu-
dents. When the chapel bells
began ringing at 7:44 p.m.,
students raced back towards
the chapel to hear the verdict
of Washington and Lee’s first
open hearing in 12 years.

As students in the chapel
stood and cheered, the accused
hugged the honor advocates
who had worked so hard to
present the case. As students
poured out of the chapel after
the verdict, most of those pres-
ent seemcd pleased with the

outcome.

“It makes me have more
faith in the W&L student body
that they can listen to all the
facts and come out with a fair
verdict," junior Colette Mo-
ryan said.

One of the honor advocates
for the accused agreed.

“I think the hearing ran
great," said law representative
Jane Ledlie.

Students flocked into Lee
Chapel and the Commons
theater throughout the day to
watch Executive Committee
advocates and honor advo-
cates for the accused deliver
opening statements, question
witnesses and finally deliver
closing statements.

Ledlie, a second-year law
student. and Josh Humphries
spoke for the accused.
Humphries is currently the
head honor advocate. Ledlie
is the incoming EC Secretary.

“I think Adam Hull did a great job, I think
the honor advocates did a great job and I
think the EC reps did a great job. I think this
was a good opportunity for the student body

to get to have a say in the honor system. ”

ROB RAIN, Executlve Commlttee President
 

Josh Payne, Oleg Nudel-
man and Jordan Campbell rep-
resented the EC. Payne will
become the new EC President
later this month.

“I’m was very pleased with
the way the [hearing] worked,”
EC President Rob Rain said.
“I think Adam Hull did a great
job, I think the honor advo-
cates did a greatjob and Ithink
the EC reps did a greatjob. I
think this was a good oppor-
tunity for the student body to

get to have a say in the honor
system.”

Rain recused himself from
the closed hearing and from
the open hearing, so he spent
the day handling logistical
details with Sergeant-at-Arms
Quiana McKenzie.

The main floor of the chapel
was mostly full when Hull, the
president of the Student Bar
Association, brought down his
gavel and called the session to
order shortly after 9 a.m.

Hull began the hearing by
laying out the ground rules for
the chapel. Members of the
community were ordered to
remain silent at all times and
only allowed to enter or exit
between witnesses.

The parents of the accused
arrived around 8:30 a.m. and
watched the hearing from the
balcony in the rear of the cha-
pel. During the hearing they
occasionally showed hints of
nervousness, as the father of
the accused would occasion-
ally drum his fingers on the
pew or sit with his chin on
his hand. At other breaks he
would pace around the balco-
ny. Mostly, however, the two
sat impassively, listening to
the testimony from both sides.

When the verdict was an-
nounced, the parents both re-
acted joyously, clapping and
waving as the crowd below
cheered.

Since the last open hear-
ing occurred in March 1995,
McKenzie found herself With-
out much guidance while she
organized the hearing.

“It was a little stressful be-
cause there aren’t any real di-
rections for it,” she said. “You
just know you have to make it
happen.”

Student interest remained
high throughout the day as
waves of students moved in
and out of Lee Chapel and
Commons theater during the
entire hearing. Attendance at
both locations peaked around
I p.m.

At times the crowd was ex-
tremely engaged, leaning for-
ward in their seats and silently
listening to testimony. During
other parts of the proceedings,
however, the crowd’s attention
seemed to fade.

Soo “HEARING” on page 3

OCR::/Vol_110/WLURG39_RTP_20070405/WLURG39_RTP_20070405_002.2.txt
 

2 0 THE RING-TUM PHI

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007

  IIBWS

 

. 4..-

JACOB GEIGER / Managing Editor

/ltmosphere in Elrod Commons theater is much more
relaxed as students come and go during the hearing

By Catherlne Carlock
C 0 FY E D ITO R

While students in Lee Chapel were
dressed to the nines in dresses and ties,
students in the Elrod Commons Stack-
house Theater enjoyed the luxury of
not having to dress up to view yester-
day’s open hearing.

A live streaming video of the pro-
ceedings was shown in the Commons
theater from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.,
when the South Indian Classical Mu-
sic Performance “Jayanthi” took over
the stage. The open hearing broadcast
would have returned at 10:00 p.m., but
a verdict was announced at 8:15 p.m.

Palpable differences emerged
quickly between the proceedings in
the straight-backed pews of Lee Cha-
pel and the comfortable movie theater
chairs of the Commons.

Students in Lee Chapel were en-
couraged, sometimes even ordered,
to remain silent. Any noise from the
crowd could possibly sway or affect
the eventual decision from l2-mem-

ber jury.

Open Hearing Chairman Adam
Hull sometimes asked students to re-
main quiet while during writing breaks
for the jurors, but that prohibition cer-
tainly did not extend to the Commons
theater.

Those who attended the viewing
in the Commons “didn’t really know
what to expect,” said junior Blair Mc-
Cartney.

With its straight-backed pews,
original portraits of our founders and
Lee’s sarcophagus, Lee Chapel had a
naturally intimidating interior. The
broadcast e-mail sent to the W&L
community asked that members of that
community act in “a quiet and profes-
sional manner.”

According to freshman Erin Gal-
liher, however, the proceedings were
a “little more light-hearted” than she
originally expected.

“People started treating it more like
entertainment rather than a serious
proceeding to determine a student’s
future,” Galliher said.

“There were definitely periods
where there was a lot of laughter.”

After the proceedings began to get
underway, however, “people started
getting bored.”

Students in the Commons, how-
ever, were far removed from the actual
Lee Chapel proceedings and thus, far
removed from its serious nature.

“People were able to express their
thoughts,” said McCartney. “Every-
one was able to react.”

While those in Lee Chapel were
expected to remain quiet with nothing
but Washington and Lee identification
in their hands, students and faculty
in the Stackhouse Theater could talk,
laugh, eat and drink.

The Stackhouse Theater also had
a higher daily traffic flow outside its
doors. Backpacks and purses were
piled outside the doors of the theater.

The theater is located outside the
freshman dining hall, directly below
the Commons living room and right in
the path from the sorority bridge to the
main part of campus.

Broadcasting the hearing in such a
heavily trafficked area made it much
easier for students to duck in between
classes or afier lunch.

The fact that students did not have
to dress in Lee Chapel attire to view
the hearing in the Stackhouse Theater
was another key component to the
broadcast’s success. Many students
just didn’t feel like wearing a dress or
a coat and tie.

However, some students in the the-
ater were still wearing their Lee Cha-
pel clothes.

Students found it easier to respond
to a particularly hostile witness or a
particularly amusing comment in the
Commons than in the Chapel. With-
out the jury present to influence, those
in the Commons could behave in a
way very dissimilar to the behavior of
those in Lee Chapel.

Sophomore Carson Bruno felt that
the general atmosphere was “much
more serious in the Chapel,” but that it
“still convey[ed] theiseriousness of an
honor violation.”

Letter from
the editors

The open hearing yesterday
was undoubtedly one of the most
important things students will ex-
perience during their four years
here at W&L. It gave everyone in
the community a chance to see the
Honor System at work and reaf-
firmed for many their belief in the
student-run system.

It was also an important day
for the news outlets on campus. It
was the first time we were allowed
to provide any type of significant
coverage of an open hearing and
report to the community about the
events.

With the help of Executive
Committee President Rob Rain,
Chair and President of the Stu-
dent Bar Association Adam Hull,
and Sergent-at-Arrns Quiana
McKenzie, we were able to come
to an agreement that allowed us to
report on the hearing.

As you will see in this issue,
we focused on the atmosphere of
the audience in Lee Chapel and
the Commons theater, along with
student reactions and opinions to
the hearing and verdict.

We were not, however, permit-
ted to release details, including
the names of the accused, the wit-
nesses called or any specific facts
of the case.

We agreed to these restrictions
because an open hearing is differ-
ent from a public trial in a court
of law.

Rain and the EC firmly believe
that specific‘ infonnation about
open hearings should not extend
beyond current students, faculty,
faculty emeritus and stafi‘. Be-
cause our joint issue will be so
readily available to people who
are not members of the W&L
community, we agreed it would
be inappropriate to publish the
name of the accused or details of
the case.

One of the EC’s most impor-
tant concerns was protecting the
privacy of the witnesses and ju-
rors. As Rain pointed out, none
of these witnesses or jurors vol-
unteered for this job. Each was
summoned by the EC or the ac-
cused and had to obey.

We came to the conclusion
that we could provide thorough
and accurate coverage of the
day’s events and student reactions
without focusing on the details.
Above anything else, we wanted
to be able to give the community
an accurate picture of the events
and news of the day.

We also need to extend a huge
thank you to all the Trident and
Ring-Tum Phi writers and pho-
tographers who took time out of
their days to help make this spe-
cial edition possible.

Thank you to all of the writers,
editors and photographers who
spent their part of all of Wednes-
day in or outside of Lee Chapel
and the Commons theater.

This week we have managed
to put out a total of 34 pages over
three editions between the two
publications in only four days.

Putting out a weekly paper
requires a hard-working and dedi-
cated staff. Putting out three pa-
pers in one week requires a staff
willing to forgo sleep, work long
hours and put their newspapers in
front of all other concerns.

We are also greatly indebted
to the staff of A Week in General,
who helped us interview students
and shared footage of the inter-
views they fihned throughout the
day.

This open hearing was ex-
tremely difficult for many mem-
bers of the community, but we
hope our coverage has helped
provide an accurate and thorough
record of this important week.

Nina Coolidge
Co-Editor-in-Chief
The Trident

Jacob Geiger
Managing Editor
The Ring-Tum Phi

 

  

OCR::/Vol_110/WLURG39_RTP_20070405/WLURG39_RTP_20070405_003.2.txt
 

 

 

THURSDAY,APR|L 5, 2007

THE RING-TUM PHI

 

 

Campus tunes

111

to hearing

JACOB GEIGER / MANAGING EDITOR

(Top) Jurors were sequestered in the Morris House during breaks In the trlal. The jury also con-
ducted its deliberations In the building.
(Left) Students file in and out of Lee Chapel during a break In the hearing. Since students were
only allowed to come in and out of the chapel when witnesses were not testifying, llnes formed
outside the chapel.
(Above) Students wait outside the chapel before closing statements. The trial ended at 6 p.m.

Hearing allows campus a rare glimpse at how EC administers the honor system

continued from page 1

The hearing was the talk of
campus throughout the day.
Students in the Marketplace
were discussing the hearing at
10 a.m. while eating their break-
fast, and students coming in and
out of both the chapel and the-
ater were eagerly dissecting the
atmosphere and testimony.

During breaks between wit-
nesses, Lee Chapel was full of
whispers and murmured con-
versations among the audience.

Even students who could not
watch the proceedings were
constantly trying to stay abreast
of the news.

“When we go for a long peri-
od of time without an open hear-
ing, people are still aware the
honor system is here and it’s a
big part of our lives,” Rain said.
“For one day, for the entire uni-
versity community to focus on
the honor system and focus on
an open hearing, I think that’s
great for the student body as a
whole.”

Despite the constant in and
out traffic, students were re-
spectful of the proceedings.
Hull and McKenzie had been
prepared to take action if stu-
dents were disruptive, but aside
from Hull’s late aftemoon Wam-
ing to turn off cell phones, the
proceedings went off without
any major problems. I

“I was really surprised at how
smoothly [the hearing] went,”
Hull said. “We were able to deal
with a lot of the more conten-
tious issues before the [hearing]

began—issues like admissibility
and the scope of the trial—that’s
why we had a stipulation of facts
at the start.”

While attendance among
students was fairly high—even
though just two days of classes
remain before exams——tumout
among faculty and staff was far
lower. A scattering of faculty
were seated near the rear of the
chapel during most parts of the
day, but the majority did not at-
tend the hearing.

Most of the major academic

administrators were present for
at least part of the hearing. The
lone exception was -President
Ruscio. Dean of Students Dawn
Watkins said he was out of town
and had been unable to return
to campus. Watkins was at the
hearing after arriving home from
Orlando early that morning.

Despite the long day of pro-
ceedings, Lee Chapel was nearly
full when Hull finally delivered
the verdict.

As proscribed by the White
Book, the jurors voted by anony-

mous ballot and did not know the
outcome until Hull announced
it. Eight votes would have been
needed for a guilty verdict. The
jurors were sequestered in the
Morris House during breaks and
their deliberations.

Ledlie said the hearing re-af-
firmed the community’s faith in
the honor system.

“Based on the reaction in Lee
Chapel I don’t think you can
have any doubt that the system
works,” she said.

 

 

OCR::/Vol_110/WLURG39_RTP_20070405/WLURG39_RTP_20070405_004.2.txt
 

   

4 0 THE RING—TUM PHI

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007

IIIIIIIIOIIS

 

Meet the players

Executive Committee

 
 
  

Honor Advocates

 

Josh umphries, head honor advocate

  

Ja

Payne, incoming EC president

mpbell, junior class rep

g Nudelmann, first—year law

Ledlie, incoming EC secretary

By Katherine Greene
PHI COLUMNIST

The honor system was tested
yesterday by a mix of uncom-
fortable students that seemed
neither representative of the
student body nor appropriately
authoritative in their positions.

As our fundamental academ-
ic structure came under question
in the open hearing, one couldn’t
help but wonder, who was doing
the asking?

Between the fumbling over
papers and seeming inability
to ask a coherent question, the
Executive Committee represen-
tatives and the honor advocates
weren’t leading so much as be-
ing led.

Granted: an open hearing I
hasn’t happened on our campus
in 12 years.

But what does it say for us
that our academic careers hang
in a balance maintained by
people who don’t seem to know
what they’re doing?

You can almost forgive EC
representative Jordan Campbell
for not knowing that you have
to ask a witness a question.

You can almost forgive hon-
or advocate Josh Humphries for
being intimidated by a witness.

You can almost forgive the

newly—elected EC president Josh
Payne for his shaky delivery.

Until you realize that the
premise of your education is on
the line.

The EC representatives, for
their part, got plenty of collab-
orative help from their fellow
EC members during breaks.

But Josh Payne, the leader of
sorts, held his cards with shak-
ing hands and tripped over his
own tongue.

Running his hands though his
floppy black hair, he repeated
himself in that soft, husky voice
at least once every question, and
didn’t seem to really know what
he was asking.

Humphries forgot who was
in charge of questioning when
dealing with witnesses.

He, like Payne, had a quiet
delivery with no apparent direc-
tion.

Beads of nervous sweat ap-
peared on his forehead, even
as he questioned his own wit-
nesses.

Campbell’s voice, echoing
from the pristine white walls of
the chapel, shook with passion
for honor. But the speech itself
had little substance, and he was
practically non—existent for the
rest of the hearing.

The one shining star in the

A literal look at the book

Open hearing acknowledges students ’ability to apply a flexible interpretation

By Peter Locke
TRIDENT COLUMNIST

upset about this. I think it

is completely wrong and it

makes a terrible statement about

the system we use here. The sys-

tem I am terribly upset about, of
course, is Groupwise.

Mass emailing took forever

to notify all the students, and as

Ihave to say, I’m terribly

a result, I missed EASILY the ,

most dramatic thing to happen
at this school during my FOUR
years, possibly ever.

According to the fastest mov-
ing object in Virginia, W&L’s
rumor mill, Lee Chapel erupted
when the gavel hit the table and
the verdict was read.

The atmosphere must have
been electric. I see something
analogous to the response to
Robert Sean Leonard’s perfor-
mance of Puck in Dead Poet’s

. Society, the liberal reaction after
the Scopes monkey trial, and the
cheering in the final seconds of
a certain 1980 Olympic hockey
game (which was a semifinal, by
the way). And I have to say, I’m
happy for the guy/girl (because
we can’t actually talk about it).

I caught most of the trial in
the Commons Theater, and as I
sat down, I remarked to my next
door neighbor how this trial felt
like such a throwback.

It was then pointed out to
me that I was watching this on
closed circuit television beamed
there from Lee Chapel, so so
much for nostalgia. Neverthe-

less, the history was apparent.

The trial was a manifestation
of the ancient White Book, the
stage filled with modern re—en-
actors of dusty history. The por-
traits of George Washington and
Bobby Lee, staring at witnesses
and the defendant with their
gaze of truth, were as pregnant
a symbol as one could possibly
imagine.

A famous truth-teller and the
original southern gentleman,
flanking the students as they
breathed life back into I their
honorable legacies. If nothing
else, it was goddamned cool.

The buzz around campus was
palpable. I shove that in the face
of any faculty member who be-
lieves the students are apathetic.
Just give us a controversial hon-
or violation concerning a well-
known guy/girl on campus, and
we’ll put on our cocktail gear
and pay attention.

And the trial itself was like
a 1,000 times better version of
Court TV. Some of it was real,
high comedy. But kidding aside,
it was impressive to see campus
so alive today. People cared,
plain and simple.

But what does the verdict say I

about the student body? What
implications does it have? Af-
ter such an interesting, and no
doubt exhausting day, what are
the major issues that linger?
Without going into too much
detail about the case (because I
ain’t allowed), I think the ver-
dict of the trial says something
important about the school: stu-
dents just don’t buy an absolute

reading of the White Book.

I don’t mean to be a nega-
tive nancy here, but if the jury
made a LITERAL interpretation
of the White Book, my guess is
the verdict would have been dif-
ferent. However, don’t misread
that as condemnation. I think
the verdict was the correct deci-
sion, but I think it was apparent
there was some shady business
going on as well.

I hate being so vague, but the
EC says I have to be.

It may not be the case that
a literal interpretation would
have changed the verdict, as it is
clearly more complicated than
that, but that’s certainly what it
looked like.

And what the students effec-
tively said is that a violation like
that should not be punishable by
expulsion from school. If things
of this nature are punishable by
expulsion, then a TON of people
at this school should pack their
bags.

The flipside, of course, is
the slippery slope argument.
No breech of honor is insignifi-
cant. One small violation is still
a breech of trust, and if we let
it one small thing slide, how far
will it go?

As usual, I believe the anser
lies somewhere in the middle.
Just as prohibition and the ad-
ministration’s definition of haz-
ing illustrate, absolutist policies
don’t make sense in practice.

There are always exceptions.
Such cut and dry definitions
work well when 450 petrified
freshmen sit in Lee Chapel for

the explanation of the honor
system‘, but it doesn’t always
work well when there is an in-
tricate and excessively compli-
cated case at hand. (Which, by
the way, was the most infuriat-
ing part of the case. Each side
spent the whole time confus-
ing each other with terms that
95 percent of the student body
wouldn’t understand with a two
hour tutorial).

There were gray areas in this
case. And today, the intent of
the defendant to break the rules
was a major area of reasonable
doubt. But that’s not to say that
the honor system is flawed. I
think it worked well today. The
honor system is simple, but it’s
open for interpretation by the
student body.

The Constitution is worded
in a similar manner, and that’s
why it works, because ideally
there is a give and take between
letter of the law and the modern
collective’s opinion of what is
right.

And today, the student body
exercised their right to interpret
the White Book. I hate to get
all schmaltzy on you here, but
I think it worked. The White
Book says that, “the Honor Sys-
tem condemns only acts that the
current student generation views
as breaches of the community’s
trust,” and that was upheld in
Lee Chapel last night.

The trial proved it, the ver-
dict said it, and the roar of the
crowd at 8:15 was its exclama-
tion point.

I’mjust sorry I missed it.

open hearing was honor advo-
cate Jane Ledlie, who at least
utilized basic public speaking
skills and kept her composure.

She had at least a basic un-
derstanding of what was going
on, and wasn’t afraid to show
it.

Standing before a half-ca-
pacity Lee Chapel, she seemed
more relaxed than her col-
leagues, maintaining control in

They have the enor-
mous responsibility
of deciding whether
students should get
kicked out. Shouldn’t ‘
there be some kind of

training for this?

her simple suit and pearls. She
wore no make-up, and didn’t
have a fancy haircut.

But let me tell you, Plain Jane
at least convinced me that she
was giving me the plain facts.

Thank God she was there.

In all fairness, these repre-
sentatives and advocates are just
students. They are our own age,
with practically the same level

_of experience as any one of us
has in giving legal arguments.

Except that they have the
enormous responsibility of de-
ciding whether students gel
kicked out.

Shouldn’t there be some kind
of training for this?

It’s disconcerting to think
that on a day when a fear of au-
thority loomed over Lee Chapel
like a deep black cloud, promis-
ing to rain punishment, those in
charge of arguing the case fell
nervous.

It’s a huge responsibility to
take on, but confusion over the
process raises questions about
it.

The true voice of the commu-
nity was heard—and felt—when
the verdict was announced: be-
fore Chair Adam Hull could fin-
ish reading, the crowd jumped
from their seats and cheered,
running for the door to congrat-
ulate the exonerated student and
chattering excitedly.

‘There were tears and smiles
and hugs and sighs of relief as
students rushed off to celebrate
(or perhaps do homework).

Too bad the advocates and
representatives couldn’t capture
that kind of decisiveness in their

arguments.
That is, after all, their job.

 WASIIINGIONANDLEEUNNERSHY 

THE RING -’I‘UM PHI.

The Trident

CO-EDITOR IN CHIEF,
THE TRIDENT
MANAGING EDITOR,
THE RING—TUM PHI

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

CONTRIBUTING REPORTER
DESIGNER

STAFF PHOTOGRAPHERS

MISSION STATEMENT: It is '
the mission of THE RING—TUM
PHI to accurately, truthfully,
and thoroughly report news
affecting the Washington and
Lee community for students,
faculty, parents and alumni.

Our goal is to look deeper
into news affecting campus

life and hold leaders‘
accountable. Through our
reporting, we aspire to spark
discussions that lead to
discovering information that
prompts change.
THE RING—TUM PHI is
published Mondays during
the undergraduate school

year. THE RING—TUM PHI is a ,

member of The Media Board,
which can be reached at
mediaboard@wlu.edu, but
is otherwise independent.
THE RING—TUM PHI welcomes
all letters. We reserve the
right to edit submissions
for content and length.
Letters and advertising do
not necessarily reflect the
opinion of THE RING—TUM
PHI staff. This newspaper
observes current court
definitions of libel and
obscenity.

THE RING—TUM PHI
UNIVERSITY COMMONS ROOM.
341
WASHINGTON AND LEE
UNIVERSITY
LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 24450
TELEPHONE: (540) 458-4060

NINA COOLIDGE

JACOB GEIGER

CATHERINE CARLOCK
PETER LOCKE
KATHERINE GREENE

MIKE FAHEY
LARA JORDAN

LENORA NUNNLEY
STACEY GRIIALVA

The Trident is an independent
publication produced by stu-
dents of Washington and Lee
University. The Trident is a
member of the Washington
and Lee Media Board which
can be reached at medi-
aboard@wlu.edu

To Contact Us:
The Trident
Elrod University Commons
Washington and Lee Uni-
versity
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-4548
trident@wIu.edu

 (anderror)_

Both sides face problems

It was the first open hearing in over a decade, but participants were unprepared