THE HONOR system is marching inexorably towards irrelevance. Its constitution and bylaws have been changed four times in as many years, and significant segments of the University community believe that its procedures are rigged against them. The Honor Committee's proposed special referendum on the seriousness clause keeps the system squarely on its self-destructive track.
Change for change's sake is rarely a good thing. Every Committee since 1996 has taken a crack at fundamentally altering the system. First came a complete rewriting of the bylaws. Then came changing the jury voting requirements to make it easier to find someone guilty. The Committee has been tireless in its tinkering to the point that the system has never been left alone and allowed to work out its kinks.
How many times can a system be fundamentally altered before it loses all credibility? The community can have no faith in a system that is constantly in flux. And the perpetual reworking is a tacit admission that the overall system is unworkable and unfair. With each Committee acting less like stewards and more like Solon, the collapse of the system seems a foregone conclusion.
The upcoming referendum is a recipe for disaster. How many students are going to vote in a poorly advertised, paper-ballot election? Certainly not the 3,000 necessary to make it a valid referendum. Few remember what student elections were like in the days of paper ballots, but take my word for it, they were a nightmare. Voter participation was ridiculously low, and voter education was even lower. And that was with an entire Student Council committee dedicated to administering them. Imagine the results with the Committee running this referendum themselves. As one Student Council official noted, "The Committee is in way over its head on this one. They just don't want to admit it."
What will the inevitably low turnout say about the reputation and relevance of the system? When barely 10 percent of the student body care enough to vote, this will be a referendum not on the seriousness clause, but on the system as a whole. The survival of the system depends upon its position as the mystical and vibrant glue that holds the University community together. The very definition of irrelevant is that people no longer care. How relevant will the system look when a handful of votes are cast in this election?
Equally disturbing is the manner in which the Committee decided to hold this referendum. Because the Committee missed the filing deadline for referenda, Student Council refused to sponsor the election. The Committee then demanded that Student Council bend its rules to allow the referendum to go forward. As one Council official said, "How ironic is that; the Honor Committee asking us to cheat for them." Because Council held fast to honesty and principles, the Honor Committee was in a bind. The Committee constitution clearly states that all elections are to be administered by Student Council, and refers to referenda as elections. Not to be denied in their quest for lycurgian glory, the Committee passed a bylaw to "clarify" the constitution, and separate referenda from other elections. The path was now clear for a self-administered paper-ballot referendum. The kind that no one cares about and no one votes in.
There is something inherently wrong with passing bylaws out of self-interest and convenience. Totalitarian regimes rewrite the laws to satisfy their own whim and fancy, not representative bodies supposedly dedicated to honor. But since the Committee behaves like the bylaws are written in disappearing ink, why should the section on elections be treated any differently?
The newly elected Committee should take another look at the proposed referendum. They are not party to the internal politics that have created the rush to the ballot box. Their egos are not wrapped up in leaving one last mark on the system and the University. They can put an end to the silliness that has marked the Committee this year, and stop the march towards irrelevance.
(Sam Waxman's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
