IN THE wake of last month's open trial of Stephanie Garrison, it seems like the honor debate is unfortunately spiraling into the realm of the extremes. While it is certain that something here went wrong (both in honor's horrendous mishandling of Garrison's first trial and also in that a student could get away with lying, not only to the UJC, but to the entire University), the extremist responses from both sides simply are not warranted. It is time to pull back from the intense rhetoric and look for real solutions.
First, on one side, some tell us that those of us who question or do not support the current honor system do not belong at the University. That rhetoric is as dangerous as it is frightening. These students would essentially like to throw out student self-governance and instead be governed by the students of over 160 years ago. This sentiment is just wrong. This point of view ignores that every U-Guide tells prospective students: that the system persists only as long as students support it and that the students can change it, meaning no -- we don't come here with the notion of this system being set in stone. Moreover, this ignores the fact that students can change their minds when they get here and see this system in action. If anyone is unworthy of being a student at this University, it is those who would cast out his or her fellow students just for questioning the status quo of our present institutions.
The other side, however, proves no better. Garrison and her supporters would essentially like to see the honor system dissolved and instances of lying and cheating dealt with by the administration. This should raise alarm bells with any students concerned with how badly the administration bungles many problems, especially issues like sexual assault. The honor system is the paragon of student self-governance at the University, and its destruction would be similar to destroying the very heart and soul of student self-governance, one of the best traditions this University has.
The only real solution at this point, then, is to end the single sanction and replace it with a multiple sanction system. This would prevent students like Garrison from getting away with such heinous lying. It would encourage students to report more cases (since there would no longer be fear of causing a student's dismissal). It would decrease or even eliminate minor cases of lying and cheating (since students do not fear being expelled for something trivial), and it would show once and for all that our University is not so committed to a tradition that we would sacrifice effectiveness in order to maintain it.
More importantly, however, this would allow honor to regain its credibility, as it could now effectively punish all perpetrators of lying, cheating and stealing. On the flip side, it would also eliminate the need for administrative oversight, as there would be a stronger system of checks and balances, with the consequences for a mistake generally being far less severe.
It is understandable that many students, especially those close to honor, resist the notion of this change. Honor represents an ideal that has been held here for over 160 years, and the single sanction in many ways epitomizes that ideal by saying lying, cheating and stealing are not tolerated here.
Unfortunately, in practical application, it simple does not work, and those who think about the "good old days" when it did clearly never lived in those days or have forgotten. The single sanction here has never truly worked and never made this school truly safe from all honor offenses. The difference between now and then is only in that better media resources and more open trials, allowing us for the first time to see just how bad the problem is and has always been.
The time has come to save honor at this University and not to let it fall in the direction of either extreme. In the spring of 2005, 59 percent of University students, fed up with all of the failures, declared in a referendum that they wanted to see an alternative to the single sanction. Last year, the Honor Committee failed to deliver on its mandate. This year, it seems the honor ad hoc committee on the single sanction may change that. In the coming weeks, we will present our proposed alternative to this committee and work with them to give students a major vote on the single sanction this spring. The time for change has come. Everyone should stay tuned.
Sam Leven is president of Hoos Against the Single Sanction. He is a fourth year in the College.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 2 hours 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 | 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.
