THIS WEEK, students at the University will get the opportunity to make their first substantive vote on sanction reform in five years. While this vote is "non-binding," in reality, it impacts the entire future of the debate. Should this vote pass, students just next year will get the opportunity to put it into effect. However, in the lead-up to this election, those opposed to reform have been flinging all sorts of unsubstantiated charges at the proposal presented by our group, Hoos Against Single Sanction, just hoping one will stick.I would like to use this opportunity to clear up any confusion about our proposal.
First, contrary to what Vice-Chair for Trials Jay Trickett attempts to tell you, our proposal will not be a "disaster" for the honor system.Quite the contrary, our proposal will strengthen the system.Our proposal puts a system in place that will allow future students and Honor Committees to maintain honor as a distinguishing feature of this University, while taking away one of the greatest deterrents to reporting cases.With increased reporting will come decreased cheating.After all, psychologists at the Center for Academic Integrity have often stated that "certainty" of punishment is a much more effective deterrent to cheating than "severity" of punishment.
Additionally, our proposal will actually reduce the arbitrariness and inconsistency found in jury decisions today.By giving juries options, two students who commit the same act will no longer face the possibility that one will be expelled while another will get away with nothing. While inconsistency may still exist, our proposal allows experienced honor officials to help advise juries while making penalty decisions so as to reduce these inconsistencies. Other schools have shown that random student juries are just as effective as anyone else in applying consistent penalty decisions (for example, George Mason University Law's Honor System), and I take offense to any claim that our students are stupider or less capable than those at these other schools.
As a third point, our proposal does not force multiple sanctions on a system designed for a single sanction, as Trickett claimed. Our proposal is, ultimately, a constitutional amendment, and there is nothing in the honor constitution that enshrines the current sanctioning regime. The only part of honor today that essentially requires the current system is the by-laws, which can easily be changed by Committee vote. Yes, there may be some hard work by future Honor Committees involved, but I find it disturbing to hear an Honor Committee member claim that "hard work" for the Committee in the future is a reason to vote no. After all, what do we elect these Committees for anyways?
Finally, our proposal allows students to exert much greater control over the sanctioning system in an honor system that is supposed to belong to them, not less. We give students the power to determine the proper penalty in every case, by turning sanctioning over to juries.We give students the chance to change poorly functioning sanctions through their selection and oversight of Honor Committee members, and their ability to recall those who are not doing their jobs. It would be irresponsible to detail every sanction in our proposal, because any change if a sanction does not work would then require a year-long process and a referendum, instead of a quick and easy fix to the problem. Including every sanction in our proposal would be akin to the US Constitution delving into the details of what the penalty should be for larceny versus the penalty for grand larceny; something much better left to a legislative body than a constitution.
This spring, students have a chance to help fix the many problems Honor faces today with a vote on sanction reform. I urge all students to look thoughtfully at our proposal, visit our Web site at www.savehonor.com (and yes, maybe even check out the other side's Web site at www.moresanctionsmoreproblems.com). In the end, I trust most students will come to the same conclusion we have: that our proposal is the best way forward for this University and its honor system. I urge all students to vote "yes" on sanction reform, referendum number four.
Sam Leven is the president of Hoos Against Single Sanction.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 1 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.
