PROPONENTS OF the honor system in its current form are getting desperate, resorting not only to scare tactics in recent weeks, but also to blatantly lying about what the new referendum will do. Whether or not you support single sanction, it’s important to get the full story on what changes the referendum will bring about. For that reason, I’ll try to dispel some of the myths that the referendum’s opponents have claimed.
Posters condemning the proposed changes proclaim that you could be kicked out of the university for telling a girl you’ll call her and failing to do so or eating a roommate’s Pop-Tart. These statements are clearly exaggerations, but the effect is still misinformation about what the proposed amendment will do. With fliers appearing around grounds touting these harsh and frightening situations, it is easy to see why people might fear the proposed changes. These claims are misleading, and derive from three misconceptions about the proposed referendum: confusion over the meaning of the word “trivial,” mistaken beliefs among students about how the honor process works, and claims that no appeals are allowed through the new process.
These posters claim that all honor offenses, no matter how trivial, will be punished under the amended honor system. While this is true, it is important to remember that the definition of “trivial” as defined by the Honor Committee is different from the dictionary definition of “trivial.” In the current Honor constitution, non-trivial acts are acts which “open tolerance thereof would be inconsistent with the community of trust.” In the past, trivial actions, as ruled by the Honor Committee, have included lying to the UJC about completing sanctions or working together on assignments worth 10% of a class grade. These “trivial” actions, under the current system, would receive no punishment. The current system forces polarization of actions: either the action warrants permanent expulsion or it warrants no action at all. This system may work for some honor violations, but simply doesn’t make sense for many possible situations. If the proposed amendment is passed, trivial actions such as these will not result in immediate expulsion, but also will not result in the Honor Committee’s inability to sanction a punishment.
Despite this, the question remains: will insignificant cases, such as those mentioned on the anti-referendum posters, be punished? Simply put, this is highly unlikely. Sam Leven, proposing the referendum with Hoos Against Single Sanction, states that “a student would really be no more likely to face a significant sanction for stealing a pop-tart under our system than a student is to face expulsion for doing so now.” He went on to describe five different criteria that an individual case would need to meet, one by one, in order to receive a sanction. First, an individual would need to be angry enough over the incident to go through the cumbersome process of reporting the case to Honor Committee. Next, the Honor Committee would need to determine that the claim was not made in bad faith (out of the anger of the individual reporting), and then a three-member Honor Committee would need to determine that the charge was serious enough to go to trial. Fourth, there would need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and fifth, four-fifths of a jury of the student’s peers would need to determine that the action was completed with dishonorable intent. Even if all these conditions are met, the new, multiple sanction system would allow for lesser punishments to be inflicted for actions such as those described.
Finally, these visible posters claim that students will have no right to appeal the decision of the committee delivering the sanction. Of all the claims made, this one is the most flatly untrue. If a sanctioning panel is created under the proposed referendum (which the referendum calls for), the Honor constitution states that the student may “appeal the panel’s finding on the basis of new evidence affecting that finding or of a denial of a full and fair hearing in accordance with this constitution.” This appeal can occur for the trial panel or the sanctioning panel of the process, allowing more appeal opportunities under the new system than what is allowed now with one single sanction.
Voting by the public is only valuable when the voting population is aware of the issues. I find myself constantly frustrated with citizens who vote, but don’t bother to become educated on the consequences of that vote. I maintain hope that at this University, which proclaims itself as a home of intellectual freedom and student self-governance, students can ignore the outright lies of those who support single sanction. The proposed referendum is the best way to implement a multiple sanction policy, and I would urge those who support honor sanction reform to support this referendum.
Anthony Nobles is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Virginia’s political parties have left our universities boarded up
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThe destabilizing consequences of the present appointment process have revealed critical and unsustainable fault lines that rest within our political system.
DUTTENHOFER: Cutting research cuts out students
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 3 days agoKneecapping the foundation of the country’s research enterprise just to follow nativist principles is an absurdly self-defeating, short-sighted strategy that is a threat to us all.
KURTZWEIL: Big Brother is infiltrating immigration enforcement
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoWhile this law does work to restrict the camera use, the data is still very loosely regulated, leaving it exposed to outside interference.
