The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

A problematic proposal

We are writing in response to a lead editorial (“Try, try again,” Nov. 21) urging the Honor Committee to put a refined version of Hoos Against Single Sanction’s proposal to end the single sanction on the spring ballot. The Committee should reject this advice for several reasons. First, now is not the time for yet another referendum. Only two years ago, H.A.S.S. proposed a multiple sanction referendum that did not garner support from even a simple majority of voters—far short of the 60 percent required to end the single sanction. That referendum was, astoundingly, the fourth opportunity students had to vote on sanction reform in three years. In both 2005 and 2006, significantly more than a majority of students voted to make it more difficult to remove the single sanction, losing by a mere .5 percent in 2005. And a survey conducted by the Honor Committee last year reveals that students remain supportive of the single sanction: 70.4 percent support the sanction or support it with some reservations. Only one third of students placed ending the single sanction as one of their top three priorities for the Committee.

Second, even with significant revision, the proposal is not a viable, effective or serious alternative to the single sanction for the Committee’s consideration. Any change to the current sanctioning system should at least squarely address the challenges presented by the sanction. This proposal, retaining expulsion as the default sanction but imposing new sanctions for trivial honor offenses, does not even come close. While this proposal may increase the already satisfactory conviction rate for accused students and lessen the punishment for some, the actual magnitude of this change is hard to predict (which itself is unsettling). But this does shockingly little to encourage faculty and students to participate in the honor system: The same arduous due process that makes the system a hassle and securing convictions difficult remains. Remarkably, the proposal only makes the system more convoluted. Furthermore, the proposal does little to ensure that each student’s sanction comports with the student body’s sense of fairness. Random student juries will decide — without substantive guidance — whether expulsion is warranted over a lesser sanction. And, where expulsion is declined, just three Committee members will choose alternative sanctions on the basis of criteria the proposal does not even begin to define. This idea is a mess and does little but rob the system of a core value.

Nadia Islam
CLAS IV
Josh Hess
LAW III

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt