THE JURY is in on the merits and demerits of the single sanction, and it remains the best sanctioning system for the University's Honor System.
For the past semester and a half, the Honor Committee's ad-hoc committee for investigating the single sanction has been studying student surveys and trial jury data to attempt to address many of the concerns commonly raised about the sanction. Does it cause jury nullification? Does it discourage students from reporting offenses to the Committee? Does it actually work to depress cheating at the University? Has student support for the sanction declined in recent years?
Frankly, the ad-hoc committee's findings cannot provide us with any definitive answers on the value of the single sanction. But the bulk of its findings strongly suggest that the single sanction is alive, well and working.
According to the ISS report, many of the most commonly cited criticisms of the single sanction appear largely overblown. Critics from The Cavalier Daily and Hoos Against Single Sanction are relentless in claiming, for example, that student juries won't convict fellow students because the sanction is too harsh. But the ISS report discovered that the vast majority of student jurors were not discouraged from voting "guilty" by the sanction, and only a small percentage of the minority of honor trials which ended "not guilty" might have had different verdicts with a lesser sanction.
Similarly, the oft-repeated claim that students don't support the single sanction and won't report their peers because of it seem exaggerated. The ISS report found that the single sanction, while a factor in discouraging student reporting, is actually not the principal factor. Apathy and wariness of the inevitable time commitment are the real culprits. And there is no evidence to suggest that student opinion in favor of the sanction has declined in recent years. In 2005, 48 percent of respondents in a student survey said they supported the single sanction or strongly supported it, 20 percent were neutral, and 37 percent said they had negative or very negative feelings. This appears to be little changed from 2000, when 19.5 percent "fully supported the single sanction," 55.2 percent supported "with reservations," and 17.7 percent did not support it at all. We remain divided with a slight edge in favor of the sanction.
The single sanction gets its biggest boon, however, from the report's findings on cheating rates at the University compared with other schools. The ad-hoc found, using 2005 survey data from the Center for Academic Integrity, that cheating rates at the University are lower than those at schools without honor codes and comparable with mostly smaller schools with codes (one of which had a single sanction). This strongly suggests that a multiple sanction system (or a less serious sanction system) does not appear to work any better than the single sanction.
Doubtless some will wonder whether it is worth keeping the single sanction if a less severe sanction could do the same job. But this concern misses the essential value of Honor having the single sanction rather than having a UJC-style sanctioning system. The single sanction works by conveying a powerful message to members of the community about the importance placed here on academic and personal integrity. A multiple sanction system works by threatening certain and efficient punishment for every transgression. Put another way, the single sanction works by cultivating a sense of honor and integrity among the constituents of the community of trust. A multiple sanction system works by appealing to the cost/benefit rationality of prospective cheaters.
Furthermore, it isn't clear whether the single sanction is a better instrument for discouraging dishonesty. The 2005 survey only asked students about cheating. It is entirely possible that lying and stealing are better discouraged by a single sanction than multiple sanctions. Not to mention, that many of the other schools with honor codes are smaller institutions. It is not hard to imagine that we face a special burden in attempting to enforce the honor code at a school with 18,000 students. If this is true, then the single sanction may well be a better instrument for discouraging cheating.
I don't mean to say here that no problems arise from our single sanction. It does raise some special difficulties which might be avoided with another sanctioning system. The ISS report does not offer any easy answers about the value of the sanction because the issues raised are nuanced and complex. But, as a supporter of the sanction, I am encouraged by their findings.
Josh Hess is a fourth year in the College.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
