Members of the Sanction Reform Committee presented opposing ideas for reform at Sunday night's Honor Committee meeting.
Sam Selden, chair of the policy-drafting subcommittee of the SRC, presented several possible sanction policies, while four SRC members who are not in favor of reforming the single sanction responded by presenting an alternate proposal that would focus on reforming the honor system rather than the sanction itself.
"The goal is to analyze and identify the best alternative to the single sanction," Selden said.
The first option is to keep the traditional single sanction as it is without any changes.
The second option is "single sanction with forgiveness," in which expulsion following a guilty verdict would no longer necessarily be permanent. The convicted student could ask for forgiveness at a later date and be readmitted to the University if forgiven by some body designated by the Committee.
Selden said the main advantage of this option is that it would provide a rehabilitative mechanism built into the system.
Another option is "forgiveness with early acknowledgement of guilt." Under this policy, when a student is informed that a case has been initiated against him or her, the student would then have 48 hours to admit guilt and receive a penalty. A student who does not admit guilt after notification would progress through the current system, and the single sanction would continue to be levied against convicted students.
According to Selden, this option would give accused students the "incentive to act in an honorable fashion after a case is initiated."
The fourth option would be to have a dual sanction system in which a first-time offender would be suspended for some duration of time and, if convicted of a second offense, would permanently be expelled. The jury would consider each case unaware of the accused student's prior conviction record.
Finally, the fifth option calls for a multiple-sanction system similar to that employed by the University Judiciary Committee. After voting to convict, the jury then would choose from a list of possible sanctions such as failing the course in which the cheating occurred, performing community service or suspension for a specified period of time.
Not all members of the SRC supported the reform options. Vice-Chair for Investigations David Hobbs, also an SRC member, introduced the "Balanced Approach to Reform Resolution," which he said was an alternate proposal for dealing with the problems typically brought up with the single sanction.
"This functions as an alternate plan for making some kind of change," Hobbs said.
SRC member Josh Hess presented the resolution.
"The idea is that if a Committee member doesn't want to vote to change the single sanction, they wouldn't be left with nothing," Hess said.
Hess said the authors of the resolution were dissatisfied with the lack of a "meaningful, sustained discussion of the merits of the single sanction."
"I guess you could say we felt snuffed out of the debate," he said.
SRC Chair Sara Page countered Hess's argument by pointing out that the SRC devoted at least one meeting to an ethics discussion in which the values of the honor system, and thus the single sanction, were evaluated.
Hess also said they were concerned that the proposals set forth by the SRC to change the single sanction were not primarily authored by students. Hess was referring to the fact that Astronomy Prof. Charles R. Tolbert and Psychology Prof. Jon Haidt are members of the policy-drafting subgroup of the SRC and helped devise the options.
Page and Selden emphasized that the SRC is committed to forwarding the single-sanction debate to the student body.
"It's very important at this point to engage the student community about the issue of the single sanction," Selden said.
Read More
Senior VP for Operations Colette Sheehy looks back at her career at the University
By Brandon Kile | 6 hours agoSheehy’s role involved overseeing the work of around 2,500 University employees, including custodians, architects and engineers.
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 22 hours agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
Two senior U.Va. Health leaders quietly take new jobs without formal announcement
By Ford McCracken | 2 days agoKibbe’s departure marks the end of an ongoing battle between U.Va. Health employees and their senior leadership.
