NEXT WEEK students are going to have the opportunity to vote to make a major change to the way our honor system operates. The Sanction Reform Amendment appearing on the ballot is the result of years of thought, discussion, and hard work. Unfortunately, those wedded to the status quo have already begun an effort to distort what the proposal actually does through misleading editorials and by spreading misinformation, all meant to scare the student body into keeping things the way they are. As a result, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the student body what the proposal does, and what it does not do.
First, the proposal does allow students to appeal their sanctions. Only the narrowest of readings of the Honor Constitution could come to the conclusion that the right to appeal a sanction is not present with the proposal, and even then, any reasonable implementing by-laws from the Honor Committee would most certainly include this right. However, it is clear from the honor constitution’s wording that the appeal clause would apply to sanctioning.
Second, our proposal will encourage increased reporting of honor offenses. This is because when juries have the choice between expulsion or a lesser sanction, expulsion is truly in the hands of the juries, and juries will be making the conscious decision to expel a student. In today’s system, juries must choose between expelling a student and not punishing the student at all. This is not a real choice, so the burden of making students face expulsion rests on the shoulders of the reporter, something that will no longer be true under our system. Additionally, many reports do not happen because faculty or students feel they will spend all their time focused on the case, only to have the offense deemed “trivial” and the accused student walk away without penalty. The proposal changes this as well. Many people have already expressed that they would be much more willing to report cases under our system than they are today.
Finally, truly trivial acts will not be punished by suspension. While the proposal does require suspension as an available lesser sanction, it also requires the availability of additional sanctions. We must remember that the Committee’s definition of “trivial” is not the dictionary’s definition. In past open trials, “trivial” acts have included lying to the University Judiciary Committee about sanctions and collaborating on homework worth 10% of a student’s grade in the class. Suspension will be used for those more serious “trivial” acts, as well as the few acts likely found non-trivial today which will no longer be found non-trivial when juries know that finding an act trivial will not result in a student facing no penalty at all. It is absurd, on the other hand, to believe any sanctioning panel would impose suspension, or any severe sanction, for the truly trivial acts, and if this were to happen, backlash would certainly end the practice.
I would like to turn to what the proposal really does. The proposal takes the current system and gives it a boost. Much of it is kept in place, while adding in sanctioning for “trivial” offenses that send a clear message that our honor system no longer simply tolerates minor acts of lying, cheating and stealing, but that we tolerate no dishonorable act at this University. Adopting the proposal will dramatically decrease the many honor offenses that go unreported every year, will ameliorate the problems created by racial spotlighting and dimming and wrongful convictions, end the current encouragement for accused students to lie, and allow the honor system to once and for all meet the old judicial maxim to “treat like cases alike, and different cases differently.”
It is my profound hope that the student body will ignore the other side’s misleading rhetoric, and take the time to get to know the issue and the proposal. If you do, you will see that the proposal is not the scary beast the other side wants to make it out to be, but is really the best proposal possible to keep honor in its place of distinction at the University while improving on all of the problems created by the single sanction. Next week, vote ‘yes’ on sanction reform.
Sam Leven is a second-year in the Law School and President of Hoos Against Single Sanction. You can find HASS online at www.savehonor.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: Virginian taxes should not be politicized
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 hours agoThe Virginian tax code as it stands is rather uninteresting. What is super intriguing is how politicians use it.
ONIBUDO: Give us back our Hill
By Nathan Onibudo | 3 days agoIt’s a shame that our administration seems willing to sacrifice authenticity for ease.
GOLDBLATT, LEVY, MILOV: Israeli flag vandalism is political, not antisemitic
By Melissa Levy , Sarah Milov and Laura Goldblatt | 4 days agoVandalism is not a protected form of political protest, but the University’s response erroneously classifies a political act as a statement of ethnic enmity.
