APATHY is the biggest threat to the University's honor system. Cheating, lying or stealing pales in comparison to the incredible indifference the student body displays towards the system they are supposed to run. As discovered in Honor Committee surveys, out of the 194 students who witnessed an honor offense, an abominable four students initiated a case (that's a blazing two percent for you statistics majors). The "community of trust" definitely needs a remodeling.
Duke University responded to their own apathy and recently revamped their honor code to create a "culture of honor" with the addition of a non-toleration cause. Simply put, it becomes an honor offense to not report someone lying, cheating or stealing. The University used to have such a clause, but the Honor Committee purged the non-toleration cause after pressure from the student body. The past is not always better; the Honor Committee should continue to resist temptation to insert a non-toleration cause. Nevertheless, the present is not perfect, and something must be done to fix the pathetic state of the honor system. Specifically, the Honor Committee should consider forcing a mandatory "Honor Education Class" for those convicted of not reporting an honor offense.
Any addition of a non-toleration cause would end up poking honor in the eye. The ultimate goal of a non-toleration clause is to ultimately stop cheating because no one feels "safe" cheating -- the threat of expulsion pressures students to report honor offenses. However, honor cannot be forced.
Clearly, with two percent of honor offenses being reported, students feel uncomfortable turning in their friends and peers for honor offenses. Imagine the reluctance the student body would display if they were pressured to turn someone in for doing absolutely nothing. With the current apathy toward the honor code sweeping the University, the non-toleration clause would be less enforced than the honor code itself.
For a less practical argument, we should not force honor on the students who pledge honorably. Certainly, statistics have proven that students have neglected their duty to report honor offenses. Despite all the honor orientation and education, non-reporting still plagues the system.
However, a non-toleration clause violates the "community of trust" it tries to restore. The honor system trusts students and faculty members to report honor offenses; a non-toleration clause gives a vote of no confidence to the student body.
The student body, though, has done little to earn the trust of its peers and the Honor Committee. Those who do not report honor offenses must pay some penance for violating the community of trust. Unfortunately, a non-toleration clause with the threat of expulsion would be hopelessly ineffective.
Honor Committee surveys reveal that the top three reasons for not initiating an honor offense are: 1. I did not think the offense was serious enough to warrant an initiation. 2. I did not want to be responsible for dismissing another student. 3. The person involved was a friend. All three reasons point to the unwillingness of students to remove their peers from their university. A non-toleration cause would aggravate their fears of an honor system they feel is overly oppressive. Despite student apathy, Honor remains in high standing with the student body (only 17 percent have a negative perception of the honor system); any kind of forced non-toleration clause would diminish their needed popularity to stay afloat.
However, a compromise must be made. An effective solution would be the addition of a mandatory "Honor Education Class" for those accused and convicted of failing to report an honor offense. The class would educate those who refuse to accept their responsibility in the community of trust. The class would help inform the offender of the tenets and rules of the honor system. Admittedly, the class could not change everyone's minds about their morals -- the loyalty to one's friends and peers or to the larger community -- but it would give a chance for Honor to reach out to those students least educated about the importance of the honor system. A penalty of forced education would decrease reports of students who tolerate honor offenses, while simultaneously increasing the amount of regular honor cases initiated, while simultaneously increasing the essential trust in the honor system as well.
The honor system cannot run without student support. Our Cavalier ancestors gave us the honor and privilege of having the oldest self-run honor system in the nation. But it is also a huge responsibility that many students are reluctant to take on. Educating those most afraid of the honor system will only make the system stronger.
(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 | 5 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.
