Our honor system isn’t perfect. But imagine it was far worse. Imagine a system bent on punishing every indiscretion — punishing students for “trivial” acts of lying, cheating, and stealing with sanctions as grave as suspension. And imagine that three members of the Honor Committee could suspend students for a “trivial” act of dishonesty without even affording them the opportunity to appeal the sanction. This is the system put to referendum in the coming spring election. Whether you support or oppose the single sanction, we should all be united in voting against this referendum.
Essentially, the proposal would eliminate the current requirement that only “non-trivial” honor offenses be sanctioned by the Committee. Under the new system, every offense — trivial or non-trivial — could be sanctioned. If a jury decides that a student has committed an act of lying, cheating, or stealing, but thinks the act is just “trivial,” the proposal requires that three Committee members choose a punishment from a sanctioning menu that includes suspension. The costs of this change will be substantial. Whether or not the single sanction is fair or effective, it is hard to deny that its simple, unambiguous gravity does a lot to communicate the importance of honor to new members of our community. A multiple sanction system vitiates that by diluting the clarity of that message. What is more, the proposal decimates regular students’ ability to decide whether the Committee’s sanctions comport with the student body’s sense of fairness. The Committee will have unilateral power to define the spectrum of sanctions for “trivial offenses” so long as it keeps The Cavalier Daily in the loop.
The new system would introduce new unfairness into the system. Students who are found guilty of a trivial honor offense lose most of the rights listed in the Committee’s constitution. They cannot confront the person they are sanctioned by or appeal the sanctioning decision to a higher body — even if they are suspended. What, if any, good would the proposal do? Importantly, this change will not decrease cheating rates. Really, the proposal can only hope to “accomplish” two things. As The Cavalier Daily Managing Board argued last semester: “Some students who would be expelled under the current system might receive lesser sanctions, and some students who now receive no punishment might receive some sanction less than expulsion.” If you are someone who thinks the primary purpose of the honor system is punishment, not deterrence, this might give you some pause. But our current system does not want for adequate punishment. Generally, more than half of students officially accused of offenses are convicted.
Even if you believe the current system is inadequate as a way of catching and punishing deserving offenders, this proposal is not for you. The new system is not going to significantly increase the number of serious or even border-line serious offenses that are reported to the Honor Committee. The faculty who don’t report serious (“non-trivial”) offenses because they don’t have enough evidence will still confront the same evidentiary burdens. Those who think the process takes too long will confront a process potentially even longer. And, significantly, the faculty who don’t report offenses because they think expulsion is too harsh will still not report serious or border-line serious cases. After all, under the proposal, expulsion is still the default in every case. There is no way for a hesitant professor to know for sure whether the offense is subject to expulsion until after the student has been investigated, tried, and convicted. Remarkably, the only significant uptick in reporting and punishment will be for truly “trivial” offenses — the white lies. People normally deterred from reporting moderately serious offenses because of the prospect of expulsion can report truly trivial offenses without realistic concern that expulsion will result.
In the end, reasonable students can disagree about the efficacy of the single sanction. But those who at least agree that the honor system is an important part of the University experience should resolutely reject this proposal.
Josh Hess is a third-year Law student and former Honor Committee Vice Chair for Community Relations.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
