In failing to renew the Single Sanction ad hoc committee, the new Honor Committee demonstrated a disappointing unwillingness to engage the community in debate. Honor Chair Ben Cooper's comments on the matter indicate that the Committee needs to reconsider its fundamental role in representing the entire student body.
Cooper was correct in arguing that the ad hoc committee was ineffective while it existed, but this isn't a problem with the idea of a committee itself, nor was it a reason to scrap the committee. Past single sanction ad hoc committees were set up for failure. All of the problems mentioned about the past ad hoc committee, such as the fact that it was stacked with pro-sanction partisans, are problems that can be fixed.
Rather than being chaired by a single student, the ad hoc committee ought to have two co-chairs -- one in favor of and one opposed to the single sanction. It is understandable that many students who run for and win spots on the Honor Committee would be committed to the single sanction. But elected representatives also serve the thousands of students who say that the sanction makes them less likely to report an honor offense. The sanction is a divisive issue about which most students are deeply ambivalent. Every recent vote that involved changing the honor system reflects this ambivalence, be it the referendum directing the Honor Committee to seek alternatives to the single sanction or the referendum to raise the threshold required to change the sanction, both of which received almost the same percentage of votes. These conflicting signals aren't an excuse to drop the discussion -- rather, they are the primary reason to continue it. A committee on the sanction's future ought to reflect the depth of discussion that occurs in the community at large.
This starts at the top with two co-chairs, but more critically it means actively soliciting opposing viewpoints on the sanction. The burden of achieving a committee membership that reflects the community's opinion should lie with the Committee.
As stewards of the honor system, elected Committee representatives have as one of their primary duties understanding exactly what constituents are thinking. A massive effort to research what constituents are thinking doesn't have to involve $20,000 surveys -- it's as simple as asking and listening. This should be the goal of the ad hoc committee -- not recapitulating a long-stalemated debate between partisans, but listening and coming up with solutions that all students can get behind.
Understandably, some Committee members feel as if it's their duty to protect the sanction from attack by people less committed than they to the honor system. But rather than worrying about weakening the sanction, the Committee should worry about the fact that their seeming closed-mindedness on the issue only perpetuates cynicism about the honor system -- weakening both honor and the sanction.
The single sanction shouldn't drown out other important honor issues; it should be discussed alongside them. The Cavalier Daily endorsed pro-sanction candidates because being a good steward of the honor system is bigger than any ideology. The Committee should realize that and put ideology aside to form an ad hoc committee that integrates the breadth of student opinion.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
