AS WE RETURNED from our Thanksgiving break, the pro-single sanction camp has given us yet another frightening look at their world, this time in the form of a column by Josh Hess ("Don't surrender the single sanction," Nov. 28). In this column, Hess practically admonishes the University for even considering our organization's proposal to change the single sanction and unloads his "regret" for opposing the forgiveness clause two years ago. The fact is, however, Hess is not being honest with you about our proposal, nor is he being honest with you about the real reason his camp has responded so ferociously as compared to their typical responses: They know our proposal is good and that, as a result, it might pass.
First of all, it should be noted that, unlike the claims of our detractors, our proposal is not at all modeled after the University Judiciary Committee. It is our organization's opinion that although the UJC does important work, it has been ineffective in getting its message out to the University and its model must be avoided. Unlike the UJC constitution, our proposal includes the constitutional requirement that juries may expel students. Unlike the UJC, it is the student body, in the form of its representative juries, who determine the penalties to be imposed and the standards that other students will be held to. Unlike the UJC, we maintain the narrow jurisdiction that allows Honor to focus on lying, cheating and stealing and to publicly condemn such actions in all forms. Honor will still be able to remain prominent and prevalent. With the strength tradition holds at this school (after all, today it would be considered blasphemy if the administration decided to, say, hold graduation somewhere other than the Lawn), honor itself will remain at the forefront of student life.
Second, as much as Hess may wish this were what we mean, our proposal does not significantly lower the standard we hold each other to. It is foolish to believe that if we are able to hold each other to such a high standard now (as Hess claims we do, with all of his arguments that the single sanction is effective), why does he not believe we cannot hold each other to just as high a standard simply because we have more options.
Is Hess claiming that our community of trust is built on lies, and that when students are given choice, it would collapse? Or is he merely afraid that multiple sanctions would reveal that we already today do not hold each other to nearly the standard that we must?
Our proposal does not say lying, cheating and stealing are okay. More importantly, however, our proposal says that no trivial act will go unpunished. No longer will a student comfortably be able to collaborate on a minor homework assignment, steal $5 from an open locker at the AFC or lie about the completion of UJC sanctions. Instead, all of these acts would be punished, while today, we see these cases merely being ignored. Our proposal gives the University a chance to have an honor system that works, not just one that sounds good.
Finally, one more part of Hess's column disturbs me greatly. "As the University population becomes larger and more diverse, what will communicate the message to newcomers that we take seriously our dedication to student honesty
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 11 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 | 3 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.
