The University's honor system is based on old notions of chivalry, in which a single taint or mistake constitutes an abdication of one's honor. This means a single, non-trivial offense is the moral and (if caught) effective forfeiture of one's right to participate in our community. While the single sanction has gripped all of the debate over our honor system, the underlying premise on which it is based has suffered the fate of remaining untouched by the scrutiny of our reason.
Few mention that the honor system is based on a very simple notion: An offense taints one's honor. Perhaps the closest we have gotten to questioning this premise has been the constant definition and redefinition of "offense" -- whether offenses have to be serious or non-trivial, etc. This is inadequate. We need to discuss the implications of the premise and how they effectively highlight the logical inconsistencies inherent to our system.
Specifically, we punish lying, cheating and stealing. Forget cheating -- it has received entirely too much attention simply because it constitutes a majority of honor charges. Take lying instead: We all lie on a daily basis. In fact, one could easily argue that lying is a quintessential feature of human interaction. Which of these lies taints our honor? Already the debate is vulnerable to spiraling into a debate of words: What's an offense? However, to avoid that, let us take a legally extreme form of lying -- forgery. Specifically, using a fake ID to purchase alcohol or gain admission to a bar is a clear form of lying, one that unequivocally constitutes an honor offense. Mere flashing of an ID not your own is a class-three misdemeanor in Virginia, punishable by up to a year of jail time.
Fake identification is an honor offense, but it is not one we often or ever hear students being punished for. The reasons for this, while circumstantial, seem rather obvious: Drinking is ubiquitous and accepted by students our age, even if not by law. Using a fake ID to illegally drink at a bar is commonplace in college and therefore, it is not an honor crime here, even if punishable by state law.
This logic is rather troublesome; it implies that honor is based on some sort of majority opinion. If a majority of students decide to cheat on midterms this week, cheating cannot suddenly become a non-offense merely because of its ubiquity. Honor Chair David Hobbs said in an interview that fake ID cases are not successfully pressed because most "people don't think that using a fake ID is incompatible with a community of trust." One must ask: Does the maintenance of a community of trust exclude scenarios in which we would be benefited from lying? It seems so.
For another example, consider the serving of alcohol to minors in fraternity parties. Fraternity parties are based on the honor system. Specifically, local police allow fraternities to supervise their own parties, thus the system becomes one based on honor. The effectiveness of this system is laughable. The IFC may argue that fraternities do their part: They ask if students are 21 and trust that no student will lie.
This argument has two implications. First, those who lie have violated the honor system and should be faced with honor charges. This would substantially reduce the University's population. Second, that fraternities are completely unfamiliar with the individuals whom they allow to enter into their parties. This is ludicrous. Many of the eager drinkers found in fraternity parties are friends of the brothers, many of whom are under 21. Would someone really argue that they have gone to fraternity parties and not seen first years? How many first years are really 21?
Marcus Vick was thrown off Virginia Tech's football team after being convicted of serving alcohol to a few minors. He faced not only state-imposed consequences, but school-imposed consequences, regardless of his star status. However, our honor system does not pursue those who serve minors to their underage friends at fraternities. Hobbs is exactly right: We think the community of trust can survive lying in order to drink. But deciding cases based on self-interest constitutes selfish expediency, not honor.
The purpose of this column is to highlight the assumption underlying the single sanction: Lying, cheating and stealing even in "non-trivial" ways taints honor, and those with tainted honor do not belong in our community. However, it seems the honor system has been tailored to find guilty only those convicted of cheating or physically stealing (as opposed to stealing online).
What is relevant, however, is that the honor system at present reflects serious biases and logical inconsistencies that need to be worked out if the single sanction is to remain a logical institution. In other words, if the single sanction is to live a justified life, it must be applied to all who lie, cheat and steal even in non-trivial ways; otherwise, the single sanction should perhaps be abandoned in favor of a more logical form of honor.
Sina Kian's column appears on Tuesdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@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 | 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.
