IT IS A funny thing to see the retreat of the pro-single sanction camp. First, the single sanction was a grand deterrent that stopped lying, cheating and stealing dead in its tracks. Once that turned out to be untrue, the single sanction suddenly became the way that we tell the outside world that lying, cheating and stealing isn't tolerated here, and that if you're caught, you're gone. Now, after the open honor trial of Nov. 13 proved even this untrue, the single sanction has become a symbol to show the world that we uphold an ideal. In his guest column on Nov. 18 ("Trusting first, sanctioning second"), Josh Hess declares that an optimally efficient penal system is not the honor system that generations of our predecessors at the University wanted. Now, if that quote doesn't scare you, it should.
What the pro-single sanction side has resorted to in their desperate effort to save their outdated tradition is truly a frightening twist. They have gone from saying that no honor violation will be tolerated to arguing that it's okay for us to be surrounded by people who lie, cheat and steal as long as we tell the outside world that the 20 to 30 every year who are unlucky enough to get caught will get kicked out.
This turn in the debate uncovers one of the central issues surrounding the single sanction debate. The two sides of the argument are no longer arguing about the single sanction itself, but rather the very purpose of the honor system. To single sanction supporters, the honor system is merely a symbol to hold up to the outside world that holds little meaning within our own community. This comes out of a cold disregard for the few students this system affects each year and a lack of caring over the constant presence if dishonor at our school. To those who oppose the single sanction, however, the honor system should be a system that actually promotes honor at the University itself. This system should be fair, so as not to build the resentment the system faces today; should be reasonable, so that students and professors will actually utilize it; and should still be firm, so that students do not take its existence lightly.
The only way to accomplish our goals, realistically, is the elimination of the single sanction and its replacement with a tiered multiple-sanction system. This system must be firm, must no longer have a seriousness clause and must include expulsion as an option; however, it must allow for multiple other options as well.
Furthermore, the system of due process must be left intact. Hess blames low conviction rates on the requirement that four-fifths of jury members vote guilty on act and intent, yet its clear in reality this rate is because of the single sanction itself. Most American juries are required to reach a unanimous verdict, and yet they reach a conviction rate of about 90 percent. Finally, the new system would have to continue to utilize its educators to constantly promote honor as a high value at the University.
If you believe that all the honor system should be is a symbol, then my argument is not for you, and you will never turn against single sanction. However, if you believe the honor system should really be about ending dishonor at the University, this open trial should have shown you that you can now no longer support the single sanction. The single sanction serves both as a punishment unfairly strong for some offenses, and a shield against punishment for others -- and, of course, eliminating the seriousness clause while keeping single sanction would be a disaster.
The open trial showed us that students can be found guilty of dishonor for act and intent, but still be openly allowed to stay at the University. However, the act these students committed was unworthy of expulsion, and they should be allowed to stay. It is the lack of any punishment for these students that bothers me, not their continued presence at the University. However, I must disagree with Hess' assessment that nobody who earnestly cares about the tradition of honor at the University is excited that College third-years Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung, who were the defendants in the open trial, get to graduate with the rest of us. In fact, as one of McClung's and Schlingbaum's fellow third-years, I will be proud to walk across the Lawn with them, and as an Honor counsel I would say that I do earnestly care about the tradition of honor here.
The fact of the matter is that McClung and Schlingbaum are perfect examples of why a multiple sanction system would be better than what we have. These two did something wrong, they recognize it, they went through hell for it (an honor trial is not fun business) and will likely never cheat again because of it.
Hess presented a dangerous new twist in how the pro-single sanction camp sees honor at our University. It is time for us to recognize the failure that single sanction has presented to us, and be prepared to move on to a system that truly establishes honor at our University.
Sam Leven is a third year in the College and the communications director for Hoos Against the Single Sanction.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInstead 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.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
