In his guest viewpoint (“A wolf in sanction reform’s clothing,” 2/10/2009), Justin Starr demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal by Hoos Against Single Sanction. Starr would have us believe that the purpose of the proposal is to punish every trivial, meaningless white lie that students commit daily at the University. He purports that the Honor Committee, under the rule of the proposal, would conduct a veritable witch hunt to convict students guilty only of common mistakes. What Starr fails to recognize is that his nightmare of an honor system is the current reality: every semester, honor convicts students guilty of nothing more than haphazard mistakes or oversights. The proposal from HASS would serve only to penalize these students with something less than a termination of their education at the University. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all punishment of being expelled from school, the proposal would require honor juries to consider multiple options so that the punishment can fit the crime. Any reasonable person would agree that a system more forgiving of minimal offenses would be in the best interest of any student at this University.
Read More
A statement from 201 concerned faculty about U.Va. President Beardsley’s appointment
By Concerned Faculty | 6 days agoBy acting in bad faith, the Board has flouted its fiduciary duties to the University and has violated its own bylaws calling on it to protect the University from outside interference.
LETTER: When everything is labeled hazing, nothing is
By Scott Gleason | January 4, 2026Worse still, over-policing benign practices risks driving genuinely harmful behavior underground.
LETTER: An alumnus and parent’s perspective on U.Va.’s presidential search process
By Tom Neale | December 15, 2025The critiques of Mahoney and the Board of Visitors are egregious double standards that I believe are motivated by political differences with Mahoney and the Board.
