TO SAY that the honor system is flawed would be an understatement. However, even the strongest proponents of reform should think twice about supporting the current referendum put forth by Hoos Against Single Sanction (HASS). Their proposed amendment to the honor constitution would do two things: 1) it would retain expulsion as the default punishment for honor offenses and 2) it would vastly expand the powers of the Honor Committee, by enabling them to sanction trivial honor offenses.
Currently, the Committee operates in relative secrecy with little to no oversight, and is capable of making a number of significant errors that can greatly influence students’ lives. The most recent open trial showcased a situation in which an investigative panel determined that it was more likely than not that an honor offense occurred in a case without any physical or observed evidence. Other open trials have revealed flawed investigations, errors in judgement by trial chairs, and overzealous counsel for the community. Further errors go unknown to the student body by virtue of the closed nature of the honor system. More egregiously, procedural changes highlighted in the Semester at Sea cases have shown the Committee’s willingness to create procedures that deny a subset of the University population significant due process rights.
The HASS proposal would not fix any of these flaws. Instead, it would exacerbate them by giving the Committee jurisdiction to punish students who have committed ‘trivial’ honor offenses. Keep in mind, the definition of trivial in the honor context refers to an act that could be openly tolerated by the community of trust without compromising the ideals of honor. Thus the HASS proposal would subject students who have committed acts as egregious as not returning an extra soda dispensed by a vending machine to the wrath and unfairness of the honor system. Further, HASS’s proposal would require that these students face at least two sanctions - one of which is suspension from the university. All this for a trivial honor offense? The HASS website lists other offenses (collaborating on homework, lying to the University Judiciary Committee about sanction completion) that student juries have deemed trivial in open trials of the past, however in closed trials, student juries have voted to expel students who committed similar actions. This makes the HASS definition of triviality far from universal.
Simultaneously, the HASS proposal does nothing to effectively change the sanctioning system in place for non-trivial honor offenses (by definition, all acts of lying, cheating and stealing that would currently be considered honor offenses) - which have historically included crimes like copying homework, improperly citing references, and using unauthorized resources to complete a problem set. Often students who commit these offenses do so by mistake, and yet if this referendum passes, they will remain subject to the single sanction. These students would still be held to honor’s definition of intent, in that they “should have known” that what they were doing could have been considered an honor offense.
Meaningful sanction reform needs to eliminate the single sanction across the board. Creating a new category of honor offenses in order to create a multiple sanction system does not do anything to ‘reform’ the sanction, or fix the honor system. Instead, it would create a system that expands the definition of an honor offense and would subject students who have committed ‘trivial’ offenses to the stress and difficulty of an honor investigation and trial. Students who legitimately want to reform the current honor system shouldn’t resort to voting for this proposal.
When you boil it down to its very core, the HASS proposal makes one significant change to the honor system: it creates a means for punishing ‘trivial’ honor offenses. There is a reason that ‘trivial’ honor offenses have historically gone unpunished, and that is because by their very definition, they are considered to be consistent with the community of trust. Changing this would open a pandora’s box of issues, and create an honor system that is even more dysfunctional than our current one. Accordingly, supporters and opponents of the single sanction should come together and vote ‘no’ on this particular referendum during spring elections.
Justin Starr is a fourth-year in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a former Honor Committee member.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | May 17, 2025Student journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
