The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

FITZPATRICK: Essential improvements to the Honor Code

The prospect of a second possible sanction is promising

<p>Offering a new approach to penalizing honor infractions.&nbsp;</p>

Offering a new approach to penalizing honor infractions. 

The University’s honor code makes the school unique. It enhances the reputation and character of the institution, encourages student self-governance by being completely student run and protects the community of trust. As students, we have heard these phrases many times, and it is hard to disagree with the ideals espoused therein. However, the single-sanction policy of expulsion if one is found guilty of an honor offense can, in some ways, harm the community of trust. The honor system and the community of trust could be strengthened if the Honor Committee were to implement a multi-sanction system.

Many students and professors have a negative opinion of the honor system because they believe expulsion is too harsh of a punishment for some offenses. This leads to less reporting of honor offenses, since students do not want to feel responsible for someone having to leave school. Similarly, many professors would rather handle the problems themselves rather than going through the system. The single-sanction system acts as a deterrent to potential reports and leads to negative opinions of the system, weakening the community of trust.

Many see the single-sanction system as an overly punitive reaction to what may be a one-time mistake by a student. Justice should be blind, but many believe it cannot be so removed from the situation as to not take the details of the offense into account. “Proportional justice” — punishment tailored to the offense — is called for by many. With the current system where the consequence is one-size-fits-all, many are discouraged from reporting infractions.

At this point, many will object the honor code is strengthened by the harsh penalty and that students ought to be held to a high standard. I believe students ought to be held accountable and that a high standard is necessary to maintain the illustrious tradition of the honor system and the community of trust it fosters. However, this objection is insufficient. Adding a second sanction would not significantly affect the standard to which students are held. If anything, another possible sanction would raise the standards as students would be more likely to report honor offenses, and jurors may feel more comfortable finding a student guilty of an offense even if they have doubts about expelling the student.

Currently, there are other options for sanctions in lieu of an honor hearing. A student can take an Informed Retraction by admitting to committing an offense and take a leave of absence from the school for two semesters before returning as a full-time student. The community of trust was not weakened by this addition to the system. If anything, it was strengthened by the allowance of students to admit their mistakes and take time away from the University before fully re-joining the community of trust.

Many are rightfully wary about the Honor Committee becoming too much like the University Judiciary Committee, which has full discretion on how to punish students. These sanctions include comparatively light punishments, such as essay assignments. It is fair to point out that too much flexibility could lead to lenient consequences for honor violations. However, adding only one additional sanction would maintain the structure of the current system while introducing some much-needed flexibility. One other possible sanction could be a two semester leave of absence, much like the current Informed Retraction. It is a steep penalty, but arguably significantly better than expulsion.

Adding a second sanction is the best possible solution as it addresses the concerns of both the proponents and critics of the single sanction. It gives jurors discretion when deciding cases, and eases the minds of those who choose not to report a violation for fear of ruining a life. At the same time, it protects the integrity of the current system by maintaining high standards for students. It allows the honor system to have its cake and eat it too.

The University narrowly voted to maintain the single-sanction in 2016. Nevertheless, we have seen a gradual movement toward a more flexible and understanding system. We can amend the single sanction without fundamentally compromising our community. If the University community added another possible sanction, the community of trust would be strengthened.

Connor Fitzpatrick is a viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily. He may be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt