TO THE EDITOR:
Tuesday’s news that the University will step in to halt Honor Court proceedings against sophomore Landen Gambill shows an alarming lapse in judgment by administration.
It is certainly not clear that these proceedings should have gotten so far, or that the Honor Court should ever agree to hear what is, de facto, a defamation case.
The issues raised include finding the thin line between First Amendment-protected speech and actionable defamation, and even federal and state courts have struggled to find the balance; it is certainly no place for a student-run Honor Court.
On the other hand, it would not be improper for the court to determine in this case or in general that such issues should be raised when the hearings start in earnest, in order to give both sides a proper say in the matter; which is, after all, the whole point of the proceedings. On that account the Honor Court may not have erred.
All of this, however, is moot; for better or for worse, the Honor Court and the student attorney general did decide to go ahead with the case, at least to the point of a hearing.
For the administration to step into the issue raises at least these two serious issues:
First, by stepping in, the administration violates the independence of the Honor Court.
Not only is this improper in its own right — the very name “court” demands a complete independence from undue outside influence — but it also opens the University to the very charge it is defending itself against — that the Honor Court acts as an arm of the administration.