Despite its weaknesses, of which there are many, students ought to vote "yes" on student referendum number four -- the honor sanction reform proposal. Finally, students have the chance to compel the Honor Committee to finish what it was asked politely to start: A 2005 referendum inquired "Should the Honor Committee seek alternatives to the single sanction?" Although that resolution passed by a majority of 59.4 percent, two years elapsed without a single proposal emerging from the Honor Committee to address the issue. Now, the current referendum proposed by Hoos Against the Single Sanction suggests an interesting, albeit imperfect, answer to the question: What is to be done about the single sanction?
Referendum number four -- for those of you who still haven't voted -- has two layers, each of which deserves its own explanation. The first layer reiterates that it is a non-binding resolution recommending that a similar, binding resolution appear on the ballot in 2008.
The second layer attends to the resolution to be proposed in 2008, which would excise sections of the honor constitution dealing with the single sanction as well as the section that stipulates "triviality" as a factor for determining an honor offense. With those two sections removed, this particular version of the resolution adds the option of "a multi-tiered list of penalties and guidelines, as determined by the by-laws of the Honor Committee." Let's unpack that idea.
Had the referendum used less polarizing language, such as suggesting the Honor Committee propose an alternative sanctioning system for elections in the spring of 2008, rather than the current, rigidly phrased "multi-tiered list of penalties," we could endorse it without reservation. Because they phrased it as such, we imagine many students will vote "no" reflexively fearing that the resolution proposes a major change to sanctioning procedures. And it does. That's okay.
This resolution, in itself, does very little. But what little it does is important to ensure that bureaucratic laziness no longer paralyzes the Honor Committee, rendering it incapable of proposing anything, much less an alternative to the single sanction. Even the most eager worshiper of the single sanction should see the value of this resolution; it submits the issue to the voters rather than ineffectual ad hoc committees.
True, according to the current wording, the resolution suggests a multi-tiered sanction. But it only suggests; it doesn't mandate anything. The resolution is careful to point out that the next, binding resolution can say whatever students want it to say, which leaves room for all sorts of alternatives. The only thing this resolution mandates is that, between next week and February 2008, students articulate their concerns with the single sanction or its potential replacements and that the Honor Committee works to address those concerns. Then, in the spring of 2008, another resolution will appear on the ballot hopefully reconciling both sides to propose a thoroughly debated, reasonable solution. More importantly, it will put the decision where it belongs -- in the hands of the voters.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 10 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
