AS A CANDIDATE last year to represent the College of Arts and Sciences on the Honor Committee, I stated that I believed it was time to consider alternatives to the single sanction. I still feel that way. The Committee’s surveys of faculty opinion in 2006 and of student opinion in 2008 reveal deep-seated concerns about the single sanction that I fear undermine the honor system’s effectiveness in ensuring the maintenance of an inclusive community of trust. Reporting rates are troublingly low, undoubtedly in large part a result of concern about the punitive nature of the sanction. Of the cases that are reported, students from minority populations are often disproportionately affected. I believe that a rational alternative to the structure of the current system could potentially alleviate these problems.
However, I strongly oppose the referendum that Hoos Against the Single Sanction has placed on this year’s ballot. As educated voters, we must jettison the debate over the relative merits and drawbacks of the sanction in order to focus on the specifics of this particular referendum. If it were to pass, this amendment fails to address most of the major problems with the single sanction, while at the same time creating additional structural problems that will threaten the Committee’s ability to afford each accused student the due process it currently guarantees.
The referendum, if passed, would not substantially change reporting levels or the populations of students being reported. I am optimistic that a multiple sanction system would encourage students to report more cases with the knowledge that a jury’s guilty verdict would not necessarily spell the end of a guilty student’s career at the University. Professors, however, discover the vast majority of acts of academic dishonesty. I do not believe this amendment will change professor reporting habits because it does not address two of professor’s chief concerns about working with the honor system. The honor process will continue to be as time-consuming and cumbersome as it has always been, a commitment professors often find prohibitive in making the decision to report a case. Furthermore, the language of the amendment does not provide for any type of remedial education for students who return to the University after an honor conviction. Many professors have expressed a desire for an honor process that educates students in order to form better individuals. Absent such a provision professors who do not support the single sanction may be no more likely to support the new system. Such a remedial process could, of course, be one of the Committee’s new sanctions, but it is not guaranteed and would require a great deal of faculty support before it could be successful. If professor and student reporting habits are left generally unchanged, as I believe they will be, we can only anticipate that the types of students being reported will also remain consistent, thus leaving the issue of race spotlighting fundamentally unaddressed.
One of the main criticisms of the current honor system is that it incentivizes dishonorable behavior at trial – why not when the stakes are so high? The proposal may actually worsen this problem. Indeed, why would a student ever choose to admit guilt if it is very likely that the jury will allow him or her to remain at the University? The amendment leaves an additional interpretation unclear: will we allow students to admit guilt to the first two criteria of an honor offense, act and intent, and then use that admission of guilt as evidence in a trial to determine triviality? Does such a scenario encourage innocent students to admit guilt anyway in hopes of achieving the best outcome?
The language of this amendment greatly and unnecessarily enhances the power of the Committee, causing further structural problems for the system. Currently, the very specific language of the honor constitution puts the decision-making power in the hands of student juries. This amendment would give three Committee members the prerogative to decide a student’s punishment, including the application of a lengthy suspension. Our honor system does not operate on a system of precedent, and it is thus virtually guaranteed that students committing similar honor offenses will receive disparate punishments. While it can be argued that is also true of our current system, at least those decisions are made by larger juries of randomly-selected students instead of three Committee members.
Finally, I am troubled by the potential legal consequences the language of this amendment could cause for the honor system, and am certain that additional amendments would be required next spring to correct the problems with this proposal. Rather than pass a deeply flawed referendum now, I urge students to vote no to this proposal with the knowledge that a better amendment can and will be written in the future. Student who oppose the single sanction should not feel obligated to vote yes to this amendment. Voting “no” does not mean you support the single sanction; it just means we can do better.
Blaire Hawkins is the Honor Committee Vice-Chair for Investigations.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: When it comes to art, it pays to pay attention
By Delaney Hammond | YesterdayEven among people who value the arts, carving out space for critical engagement with — rather than just passive consumption of — art has been an endeavor I have treasured.
PARTING SHOT: You only get what you give
By Delores Cyrus | 2 days agoThe people at this place have taught me that letting others in, while not always easy, is always worth it.
PARTING SHOT: Life lessons
By Miriella Jiffar | 2 days agoThroughout my time on the Life Desk, I’ve wondered what breathes life into this University.
