ON MY FIRST tour of the University, one of the quickest things the U-Guide pointed out about academic life here at the University was the honor system. As the presentation went on, she talked about the most tangible benefit of the honor system -- taking unproctored exams. I, of course, envisioned a Lawn full of undergraduates come test days taking advantage of this wondrous freedom. Unfortunately, nearing the end of my first year, I have learned that not all professors so strongly trust the students as the Prospectus and U-Guides claim.
Nearly every exam I have taken at the University has been proctored. This has bothered me since I first sat in a stuffy classroom with TAs and professors watching over me irrespective of my pledge on my honor that I did not cheat on the exam. The professors' decline of trust in the students is evidence of an honor system that is losing its popularity among its faculty, and every student and faculty member must work to rebuild this trust.
Although the honor system is student-run, the professors, as well as the rest of the University, are victims of any academic crime. When they feel the students are no longer holding to the strictest ideal of honor, as in the Bloomfield case, then they begin to lose faith in the honor system as a whole. Not allowing students to take an exam where they please might feel like a small thing to lose, but it's more than just the specific privilege. It is evidence of a slowly dying faith in the honor system by the faculty.
The fact is, without the professors, there is no honor system. Without the tangible benefits of the honor system there is no way the student body would support the single sanction punishment.
A community of trust needs to be more than an ideal; it needs to be a reality. Having to risk expulsion after cheating on one simple quiz or homework set does not seem very appealing when there is a void of trust between students and professors.
Of course, the decline of the honor system is not necessarily a new problem. As the University has changed, so has the honor system. And needless to say, a static honor system is a failing one, but at the same time, students need to remember that the tenet of zero-tolerance towards cheating is ideal because it is supposed to ensure the community of trust. However, the community of trust is dying. The solution is not to remove the single sanction, but rather to improve student, professor and administrative opinion of the system. To keep the students' high opinion of the honor system high, the professors must unite in giving trust back to the students. But improving professors' trust is the effect not the cause. Students are responsible for changing the faculty's opinion of the honor system.
But, we as students have a lot of responsibility to lead the professors towards that goal. Of course, the ridiculously obvious answer would be a utopian community where no one cheated. But since that is an impossibility, we must look forward to other, more practical, answers.
This fall we had an open honor trial, last week featured a forum discussing the single sanction as well as a mock trial. In addition, the Honor system has sent CDs, pamphlets and dorm talks to inform the student body. Because all students cannot capitalize on all discussions and trials, the honor system must become an informal topic of debate, as well as a formal one to demonstrate a popular concern about the status of the honor system.
In addition to showing great interest in our honor system, we must also show more broad support of the honor system when it proposes a referendum. When less than half the students vote when a sacred tradition of the University is at stake, then the professors are much more likely to coordinate apathy with dishonesty.
Students must demonstrate to the faculty that we are not apathetic. Students can demonstrate their enthusiasm in many ways. From simply discussing the honor system with friends, to attending forums concerning the Honor system. From talking to a professor about honor to voting in any honor referendum; the students can let the University know that it cares about its honor system, and it will not let it go.
Just like John Edward's colony in Massachusetts, we are a city upon a hill -- a model for all other schools to follow. If honor fails here, it fails everywhere. Other schools and the rest of the country observe our utopian honor beliefs and are incredibly eager to criticize it. Some admire the honor system while still others can't wait for its collapse.
We cannot let that happen.
Some might argue that a few professors who feel to take a conservative route to prevent cheating rather than putting faith into the students doesn't really affect the honor system. Unfortunately, every professor who doesn't trust the honor system diminishes the power of honor at the University. Every time a student lies, cheats, or steals the system has failed; and in the same way, each time a professor believes that he must take protective measures to prevent a student from violating the honor code, the system fails again.
The honor code is a sacred, idealistic bond that keeps the University together, and makes the University unique. As students, we must regain the trust of the professors for the system to succeed, and the professors must realize we need their trust too.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 4 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
