WHEN THE Honor Committee formed its ad hoc committees at the beginning of our term, we recognized the need to work towards presenting an alternative to the single sanction. The student body voted yes to pursuing alternatives to the sanction, and we have every intention of following the will of the student body on this issue.
As an Honor Committee, it is our responsibility to work towards alternatives to the sanction in a deliberate, methodical fashion. We would be shirking our responsibilities as representatives if we were to continue to draft proposal after proposal with no real thought to how those changes address the specific concerns of our constituents. When we present alternatives to the sanction, it is imperative that the change be effective in strengthening honor at the University, specifically improving upon any problems associated with the current sanction.
The ad hoc Committee for the Investigation of the Single Sanction is the first step in this process. The ad hoc committee will first consider how the single sanction effects jury nullification, faculty opinion on the honor system, student opinion on the honor system, and overall cheating rates at the University.
The specific charge mandates that "the work of this committee should provide a framework upon which future reforms to the sanction can build."
The ad hoc committee will present a final report on the merits and drawbacks of the system so that the Honor Committee can go forward fully informed of the problems that could be solved with a change in the sanction.
Previous experiences with the Sanction Reform Committee and the forgiveness clause in the spring of 2005 have shown us that any alternative to the single sanction must be firmly rooted in knowledge of the benefits of change.
The forgiveness clause failed to receive support from both the Honor Committee and several members of the student body, primarily due to concerns about a lack of information on how the proposal would address perceived problems and the effects it might have upon the core values of the system.
We want to avoid recreating the same type of discussion this year. When we consider an alternative to the sanction, this research will provide the necessary information to debate the issues rather than make assumptions about the affects of a change.
Whether you are pro sanction, anti sanction or somewhere in between, it is easy to recognize that a change to the single sanction would dramatically change the landscape of the honor system. Everyone wants to be aware of what we would lose and what we would gain under different standards.
After all, our goal is to maintain a community of trust and integrity at the University. The ad hoc committee will allow us to pursue alternatives to the single sanction with a better understanding of how the proposed change would affect our community of trust.
J. David Hobbs is a Cavalier Daily contributor. He is chair of the Honor Committee and a fourth year in the Commerce School.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
