THE HONOR system is one of the University's most hallowed traditions. Many students, faculty and administrators alike laud the merits of the system and the benefits such as proctor-free exams and a sense of trust that the system provides. At the same time, there is a sizable, and growing, portion of the University community that also sees the honor system as inefficient, frightening and out of touch with student and faculty opinion. If the honor system is to remain an effective institution at the University, changes must be made, the first of which is the elimination of the single sanction as the system's sole penalty.
A cursory look at the numbers and statistics surrounding the honor system affords some insight into the current state of the honor system. This past academic year there were only 48 honor investigations, the lowest level since 1999-2000 when 47 investigations took place. In 1999, an Honor Committee survey revealed that 63 percent of faculty favored a multiple-sanction system over the current single sanction. Keep in mind this was before the Bloomfield cases occurred, so the number is bound to be higher now.
The significance of these numbers should not be understated. Faculty initiate the majority of honor investigations, so when 63 percent of faculty members prefer an option other than the single sanction, one has to wonder how often faculty members overlook instances of lying, cheating or stealing. The 48 investigations could reflect a growing distrust of the honor system but more disturbingly, it means that students might be more inclined to lie, cheat or steal knowing that so few honor investigations are actually initiated against students.
In addition to the numbers, there remain several fundamental issues the Honor Committee needs to address. On our admission applications, we sign an agreement to abide by the tenets of the honor system. Why then are students often forced to write out and sign the pledge on exams and papers? In a true community of trust, this would not be necessary, and grade deductions for failure to write the pledge would not exist. Another issue is that of jury nullification, loosely defined in the real world as voting on the verdict according to your own conscience, and not necessarily the facts. Though obviously impossible to identify, it would be a stretch to think that it doesn't occur in honor trials. Even Honor's ad-hoc committee on the single sanction expressed concern over jury nullification
Last week the same committee rolled out several recommendations they felt necessary for the improvement and restoration of the honor system. One proposal, thankfully, discusses adding one or more lesser sanctions for less serious violations of the honor code. The Honor Committee needs to take a page out of the University Judiciary Committee's playbook and add a wide variety of lesser sanctions. The truth is that not all honor offenses are created equal, and therefore many sanctioning options are needed. One lesser sanction that would greatly benefit the Honor Committee is a suspension or expulsion held in abeyance. Under such a penalty, a student would receive a warning for their first honor violation with any subsequent violations resulting in suspension or expulsion. This would remove the dramatic finality of the single sanction and at the same time provide a deterrent against honor offenses. Honor should also put forth a straight up or down referendum on the single sanction versus multiple sanctions. Last year's referendum provided a poor alternative (informed retraction) to the single sanction and hence, was defeated.
Another suggestion put forth by the ad-hoc committee is the elimination of random student juries in favor of a mix of students and Honor Committee members. This is a unwise idea first because indirectly it says that random student juries cannot be trusted to reach a fair and impartial verdict. The way to address bias in random student juries is not to eliminate them, but rather to investigate why bias exists. Perhaps, as previously mentioned, large percentages of students disagree with the single sanction and hence, demonstrate bias on the side of the accused student. Second, eliminating random student juries is horribly out of touch with the real world. Criminal and civil court cases forbid judges, lawyers and law-enforcement professionals from sitting on juries. The Honor Committee should forbid Committee members from sitting on honor juries.
There is no hiding the growing discontent student and faculty exhibit towards the honor system. However, the system should clearly not be scrapped entirely, rather its rules and policies adjusted to adapt to shifting public opinion.
(Joe Schilling's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jschilling@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: You only get what you give
By Delores Cyrus | 5 hours agoThe people at this place have taught me that letting others in, while not always easy, is always worth it.
PARTING SHOT: Life lessons
By Miriella Jiffar | 10 hours agoThroughout my time on the Life Desk, I’ve wondered what breathes life into this University.
PARTING SHOT: Staying the course
By Elizabeth Parsons | YesterdayStorytelling is powerful, and writing for The Cavalier Daily has empowered me to share my own stories and the stories of others.
