WHAT EXATLY does it mean to be honorable? Proponents of the non-toleration clause would have you believe that to be honorable you must report any and all possible honor code violations immediately, no matter what the circumstances or the potential consequences. Yet there is something more to honor, something that involves thinking and reasoning over simply following set guidelines. More importantly, when a majority of both students and faculty see a problem with the honor system, it really does not make sense to use draconian methods to force its survival.
In the 1970s, students at the University removed a clause of the honor code allowing cases to be initiated against students suspected of not reporting a violation. Since then, this non-toleration clause has come up time and time again as a supposed panacea to the honor system's problems. Though the end goal is noble in trying to get students more actively involved in reporting violations, this proposed method for doing so is simply ridiculous and will only serve to alienate students even further.
In an interview, Kenneth Schwartz, a supporter of reinstating the clause and former Chair of the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee, said that reinstating the non-toleration clause would signal to students the need to assume ownership of the honor system. In an April 2004 report entitled "Faculty Senate Perspectives on Honor," Schwartz's Committee wrote that because of this lack of student involvement many Faculty members see "the restoration of the Non-Toleration Clause as an essential step for students to assert their full control and responsibility for their Honor System." Reinstating this clause, they argue, would bridge the gap between student and faculty initiations. More importantly, as Schwartz pointed out, was that one of the central reasons it seems students do not take part is the lack of an alternative to single sanction. Fortunately, this is something both students and the faculty seem to agree on.
What the non-toleration clause supporters do not realize, however, is that such draconian measures will be entirely counterproductive. Last Tuesday, a Cavalier Daily article on the Honor committee's discussion of the clause reported Investigations Vice-Chair Lauren Ross as noting "that schools with non-toleration clauses spend most of their time enforcing them and non-toleration clauses do not do much to change the environment." This statement nicely sums up the realities of the non-toleration clause.
Forcing students to report possible honor code violations or face punishment themselves -- which under the single sanction means expulsion -- is impractical. As Ross pointed out, the non-toleration clause will likely become the focus of the honor system. Rather than search for ways to improve student and even faculty participation, the Honor Committee will waste time and resources prosecuting students who may or may not have seen something. These cases will not only be next to impossible to justly prove, but they will place a ridiculous burden on students who out of fear and worry may report what they perceive to be an incident in order to cover themselves. They may not think things through and consider whether what they saw actually happened or if it truly deserves to be reported.
In addition, forcing students to report incidents by directly threatening them if they do not would only further erode confidence in the integrity of the honor system. As a result, though more cases may be initiated by students, as many, if not more, students will likely lose faith in the system entirely -- which will prevent any student efforts to reform it. Getting students more involved in initiating cases requires that students believe in the fairness of the system and their ability to modify that system when it goes awry. This cannot happen under the non-toleration clause.
Lastly, but most importantly, there is an ideological component involved, which is the word honor itself. Despite what some would tell you, honor is not just following the rules automatically. Instead, honor is a living, changing entity based on your actions and beliefs. There is greater honorin not reporting a trivial or unclear violation when there is not enough evidence or if you know the punishment will be too severe. Honor requires a reasoned judgment call based on free will, not a rash decision based on self-preservation.
Clearly there are problems with the honor system at this University, because honor itself is an ever-changing and hard to define concept. Ideally, no one would lie, cheat or steal, and if they did everyone would be willing to report the incident knowing the person would receive fair treatment. This can never be the case, however, if students and faculty alike do not believe the honor system to be just and fair. Forcing student participation will do nothing to solve this problem and will only widen the gap and mistrust. Rather, true honor would be working together to create a fair and just system people can believe in. Only then will integrity and participation be restored to the honor system.
Allan Cruickshanks' column appears on Tuesdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com
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 | 3 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.
