THE UNIVERSITY is a school steeped in tradition - some well-known, some not-so-well-known. Streaking the lawn. Dressing up for football games. Gus Burger eat-offs. No tradition, however, has carried more importance throughout the years than that of the honor system. The honor system has managed successfully to evolve and adapt to the changing tastes and needs of the University community. The current issue of whether to adopt or reject the informed retraction proposal is an outgrowth of this evolution. As our predecessors embraced change as the honor system's merits were questioned, we too, should now embrace change. If the informed retraction proposal comes to a vote on the 24th, passing it will strengthen and renew our honor system, and will do justice to those that attended this University before us.
The question of whether or not informed retraction will "cheapen" the value of the honor system is a difficult one. Having a zero tolerance policy for lying, cheating and stealing makes the importance of our honor system clear. Additionally, the all-or-nothing expulsion formula shows the outside world that the University is a place where honorable behavior is held sacred.
|
Nevertheless, there come times when change is necessary. This is one of those times. The honor system is floundering. A survey last fall found that some 27.8 percent of students had witnessed an honor violation, but less than one percent of those actually reported it.
The honor system's ability to mold itself to the opinions and needs of the University community, as well as the honorable values it embodies, have kept it strong for over a century.
The honor system originated when a student murdered a professor in front of Pavilion X in 1840. Today's honor system does not begin to address this kind of issue. Nor does today's University population remotely resemble that of 1840 - what was a group of generally southern, white gentlemen has been replaced by a diverse student body. There are cultural, religious, ideological and a host of other forces at work here that the creators of the honor system could never have imagined.
So, here we are in 2002. It is no secret that honor violations do occur, and without reproach. Furthermore, it is no secret that many students and professors alike are turned off by the idea of the single sanction. Many feel that the sanction is too harsh, too final and too inflexible. Others feel that the issue of severity of offenses should be addressed more thoroughly. By all accounts, if these trends of moving away from the honor system for various reasons continue, respect for the honor system as well as initiation of honor cases will decline.
Allowing the honor system to wither away and die like this would be a crime against the thousands before us who respected this tradition.
Passing informed retraction will breathe new life into a system that has for some 160 years constantly taken on the form of the University population that created it.
Opponents of informed retraction claim that three semesters' leave is not enough, and that it amounts to a slap on the wrist. Other opponents of the proposal, including Honor Committee Chairman Thomas Hall, maintain that the conscious decisions a student must make in order to go to an honor trial - first committing an honor violation, and then not submitting a conscientious retraction - allow more than enough room to act honorably. Adding a third option, they say, is overkill. There are several arguments against this.
Three semesters' leave is not just a period of time per se. It's a complete disgrace. If a shamed individual convicted of an honor offense were to return to the University after his year of absence, he most assuredly would comply with the system. To not do so would be complete idiocy.
One should remember, too, that under the current proposal, only one informed retraction is permitted, the student's transcript would be marked "Enrollment Contingent Upon Honor Rehabilitation," and would be required to take an academic course on honor and ethics. And since the informed retraction option is seen as more attractive by many students and faculty since it leaves the existing single sanction in place, yet is less severe than the single sanction, the honor system likely would be used by students and faculty more often. Informed retraction will work to ensure the continuing vitality of the honor system as a living, breathing organism that binds us all together as a University community.
Informed retraction is a step forward in the evolution of the honor system. It will benefit students, faculty, and staff alike. Most importantly, it will help keep alive and vibrant the most sacred tradition of Mr. Jefferson's University.
(Austen Givens' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at agivens@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe 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.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe 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 | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
