Representatives from Hoos Against Single Sanction, Students for the Preservation of Honor and the Honor Committee debated options for changing the single sanction during a forum held by the Committee last night.
Josh Hess, founder of Students for the Preservation of Honor, Rachel Carr, vice president of Hoos Against Single Sanction and Vice Chair for Trials Jay Trickett presented arguments for and against the single sanction, as well as alternative sanctioning systems such as informed retraction or multiple sanctions.
"We wanted to discuss different proposals and examine the pros and cons," said Laura Holland, chair of Honor's single sanction ad hoc committee.
Hess, who argued for the single sanction, admitted that the single sanction as a punishment is tough, and that emotional and intellectual frustration can result from it. He asserted, however, that the single sanction is what makes the University's honor system unique.
"The single sanction sets the University apart as a school that inordinately values honor and treats its students as adults," Hess said.
Both Carr and Trickett countered that the single sanction system provides no incentive for students to tell the truth once accused.
"We can be the generation that changes things for the better because we had the courage to look at what was here and say, 'I think we have a responsibility to U.Va. and not just to the single sanction,'" Carr said.
Hess said he fears that a multiple sanction system which emphasizes rehabilitation might not be taken seriously by students.
A multiple sanction system "treats us like pre-school students. Time-out when you plagiarize a paper," Hess said.
Carr disagreed, citing her trust in the student population to fulfill the demands of a multiple sanction system and make informed decisions.
"I think there is a gray area in what constitutes an Honor offense," she said. "But I think we have to say that our students are smart enough to handle this."
Trickett presented the argument for informed retraction, which he considers to be the middle ground between single and multiple sanction systems.
Informed retraction would allow students to admit their guilt after having been informed of an investigation into an Honor offense but before being tried.
This differs from conscientious retraction in that a student is given the opportunity to confess after being made aware of the charges brought against him or her. The proposal first appeared on the ballot in 2002 but failed to pass.
"The most effective system would be one that rewards confession and reconciliation," Trickett said. "I think that what you would find in this system is that the community of trust would be enhanced."
Read More
U.Va. loses over $60 million in federal research cuts
By Bertie Azqueta | YesterdayThe impacted grants include three from the NIH, seven from the NEH, one from the United States Agency for International Development and four from the State Department.
Department of Education reverses course, awards Federal Executive Institute to U.Va.
By Ford McCracken | 4 days agoThe ED had previously awarded the institute to Charlottesville City Schools.
Students reflect on the life and legacy of Pope Francis
By Bertie Azqueta | 5 days agoAt the University, students shared a range of perspectives on his legacy of reform, inclusivity and his impact on the global Catholic community.
