REMEMBER these proud words from childhood: "I did it all by myself, nobody helped me." Maybe it was when you read a book or made a cake. And your parents probably were proud of your independence. At some point, however, it also became apparent to you that sometimes it's necessary to ask for help.
Here at the University, "student self-governance" is a popular phrase. We automatically assume that doing it ourselves is best. But the recent Honor System Review Commission report shows that this attitude has led to community disillusionment with the honor system, which threatens the system itself. Yes, it's our system. But this ownership obligates students to reach out and involve others in shaping honor at the University.
|
When alumni wax nostalgic about their University experience, they usually include the honor system as a part of their positive memories. Because alumni at this school remember the honor system as fondly as football, fraternities and other institutions alumni give to, the Alumni Association began a campaign last October to establish a $2 million endowment for the Honor Committee's improvement and maintenance. That is as ringing an endorsement as I can think of.
Unfortunately, however, not everybody feels this way. Earlier forms of the system required that students, and nobody else, initiate charges. Over time, however, the perception grew that students were not sufficiently vigilant, and this right was extended to anyone; now only about one-third of the cases are initiated by students (Honor System Review Commission Report, Introduction); this indicates students are not trusted to resolve matters of dishonesty themselves.
In an effort to become involved, however, many individuals, particularly faculty, have experienced negative sides of the system. A recent survey commissioned by the Faculty Advisory Committee specifically cited "unpleasant treatment by counsel and others in the course of honor proceedings" as a major reason for widespread disillusionment with the system.
What these findings suggest - but do not directly state - are indications that the adversarial climate for which honor trials have become known includes attempts by defendants to discredit accusers' testimony, even respected faculty.
This is a grave problem. Students cannot expect professors to trust the system if they don't feel they can count on it to treat their concerns with respect .
By requesting a review commission, the Committee has shown its recognition of an important fact: A student-run system needs non-student input. Besides current undergraduate and graduate members of the Committee, the commission consisted of recent alumni, an assistant dean, a law school professor and a member of the Board of Visitors - individuals whose different experiences at the University provided valuable perspectives.
Committee members obviously have a great deal of procedural knowledge, but focusing on procedure makes it hard to consider the larger picture. Ordinary students have high stakes in the larger issues, but generally are not as well informed.
Faculty and staff, however, have a broader outlook on honor. Many have experience with honor systems at other schools, giving them empirical knowledge about the pros and cons of the Commission's proposed reforms, especially the issue of changing the determination of seriousness.
Although the Review Commission pointed out the need for the Committee to mend fences with faculty, administration and others, specific methods were not agreed upon. The Commission has charged the Virginia 2020 project with gaining faculty and administration input on the proposals in the new report.
While general education and feedback is an important goal, the project should emphasize gaining information on how the Committee can make the system more hospitable for nonstudents and regain their support.
As the Committee presents the Commission's proposals to the student body, we must balance our need for independence with our need to consider the opinions of nonstudent members at this community. Without their aid and cooperation honor cannot remain a viable institution at this school.
The student body would do well to listen for the entire community's input on the proposed changes. Preserving honor requires us to behave as adults. Unlike children, adults understand that asking for help shows wisdom, not weakness.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days 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 | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
