The University community deserves a more informed perspective in response to several misguided assertions in Sam Leven’s guest viewpoint (“Single sanction truths,” Oct. 8). While I agree that student self-governance is fundamental to the University student experience, the notion that the single sanction is harmful to that experience is simply untrue.
Leven bases his argument on a handful of hypothetical anecdotes to argue that the community of trust does not exist. The facts show otherwise. In a survey research by Don McCabe, University students are less likely to cheat than the typical college student. Moreover, the rate of cheating is in fact very low (only six percent of students surveyed had committed an honor offense). This low rate is particularly impressive given that it is roughly comparable to many much smaller, private, more closely-knit institutions.
Perhaps most laughable is Leven’s suggestion that the single sanction is to blame for the hesitation of students to turn in their peers. The fact is, a roommate, sorority sister or study group partner hesitates to report suspicion of their peers because of the very act of “narcing” on their friend. If the punishment were suspension or a failing grade, would friends be any more likely to report each other? Very unlikely. Low reporting rates, unfortunate as they may be, are a sign of society’s near-absolute emphasis on loyalty to one’s friends.
Proof? Schools with honor systems with (surprisingly) light sanctions have a reporting rate indistinguishably higher than the University’s. McCabe — well regarded as the expert on collegiate cheating rates — confirmed this to me in a conversation I had as Chair of the Honor Committee from 2003-2004.
The single sanction is really a misnomer. It is not a sanction in the sense of a punishment. It is the consequence of an ideal to which the University aspires: to live in a place where you can trust every peer not to lie, cheat or steal.
Is it perfect? No. Do infractions occur? Occasionally, yes. The ideal is imperfect. But it does not follow that we should give up on that ideal. The truth is that honor matters at the University. We live it. We talk about it. A lot. In my experience, the community of trust exists — and it is a community of benefits, as well. For every exception that Leven cites, the average student can cite three examples of how the University is more honorable, trusting and open than any other public university in the United States.
Leven is right about one thing: The world we have created here is not one designed to look like the “real world.” Its about something better. And that’s exactly what students for generations have affirmed that they want in an honor system.
Carey J. Mignerey
CLAS ‘04, LAW ‘09
Honor Committee Chair ‘03-’04
Read More
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
July 23, 2025Following this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
TURNER: The ‘95-5’ statistic on viewpoints diversity leaves out the majority
By Sarah Turner | June 19, 2025Political contributions are likely a weak proxy for the presence of diverse perspectives in the classroom environment.
VEGA: In defense of President Jim Ryan
By Keoni Vega | June 5, 2025Should the raucous Jefferson Council and related conservative groups succeed in their effort to oust President Ryan, the University will enter a new phase that will be unrecognizable to most of its current students and staff.
