THIS UPCOMING election, one of the referenda on the ballot will be the consensus clause. The consensus clause states that to change the single sanction system in the honor code, 33 percent of students will have to vote for the change. Currently, the single sanction can be changed simply by 60 percent of voters if they make up only 10 percent of the overall student body. Few would argue that this 10 percent an absurdly low percentage, a number that it is ludicrous to assert as representative of the student body.
Though it may be argued that the consensus clause purports simply to defend the single sanction, it plays an important role in preserving the ownership that students deserve over the Honor system -- a system that is the defining thread in the University's fabric. No doubt, the consensus clause does make it difficult to change the single sanction. But it would be unfair to suggest that something which is so undeniably a quintessential part of the current system should be able to undergo change with a tiny organized effort led by detractors -- group thatrefuses the incredible privilege and pride the single sanction offers us as a mechanism by which we can confirm our commitment to the highest possible standard of morality and value.
This almost happened last year when a small group of people tried to assert the laughable "forgiveness clause" that was shot down because of its ambivalence and impracticality. There are only two reasons why someone would consider voting against the consensus clause: either they do not believe in the single sanction or they believe that requiring 33 percent of all students to approve a change is far too high. I will tackle both of those questions in turn.
The single sanction is often interpreted as a harsh, absolute judgment. But every student knows that honor at the University is absolute and that our University is genuinely a community of trust. The consequences are made clear at the very beginning, and students still make the choice to attend. The very definition of a community of trust is at stake if the sanction is rescinded. We must remember that the sanction is an ideal that we all subscribe to, in attitude and character. It is an ideal that few can even consider striving towards and we should relish the culture of honor the sanction creates.
There has already been much debate over the single sanction, and there still exist some who do not seek to strive for the highest standards. Those who are against the single sanction, however, have still pledged to conduct themselves in an honorable manner and are still members of the University community. Presumably, they wish that governance in that community is responsible, ensuring fairness. Even if they believe that the single sanction is not a good mechanism, they must agree that it is an integral part of the current system.
Supporters must also agree that such an integral part of the current system should not be susceptible to a change by such a small percentage of voters. Supporters must agree that a change in the University's core beliefs should only be inspired by a true and pervasive desire in the student body to change those core beliefs. The implications of a change not supported by the community are clearly devastating.
But the question remains as to why 33 percent, is representative of the student body. Last year, a similar consensus clause was proposed with a higher required voting percentage: a simple majority. This year, the consensus clause has been modified because of the recognition that only those who feel strongly about the sanction will vote. A lower percentage, 33 percent is a just and fair amount of people, guaranteeing a majority with a high enough voting percentage to ensure that a defining thread of the honor system is not changed against the will of the student body.
In fact, according to the University Board of Elections, last year 53 percent of undergraduate students voted and 15 percent of graduate students voted. Clearly, students at the University care about student self-governance and are anxious to play a part in defining the systems that exist for them. I, for one, even if I were against the single sanction, would be sorry to see it changed against the will of the community.
Given last year's election, especially higher voter turnout for Honor Committee elections over other posts, and the student reaction to the open honor trial last November, I am convinced that at the University, all of us students want ownership over the honor system. The consensus clause preserves that ownership.
Anand Kanoria is a fourth year in the Commerce School and is an Honor senior support officer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
