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
LETTER: Misunderstanding the Honor Committee’s mental health procedures
By Seamus Oliver and Alexander Church | March 15, 2024We recognize that the Honor process can be stressful and that any student may benefit from support, regardless of an underlying health condition.
LETTER: Mischaracterizing a tangled war
By Michael Liebermann | February 2, 2024We should not address this war with blind idealism. We should address it, instead, with nuance and care.
P.U.M.P.K.I.N. SOCIETY: Happy Halloween 2023
By P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society | October 31, 2023The P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society Recognizes Individuals Who Enrich The University Community Through Their Silent And Selfless Service.
