If you asked any tour guide what the oldest tradition at the University is, they will invariably answer the honor system. They will then give an example where they were given a take-home test to demonstrate how professors and students alike believe in and adhere to the honor code throughout the University. What tour guides and honor fanatics fail to include is the truth. At the University, the honor system is the exception, not the rule.
The honor system's first claim to fame is that it is completely run by students. It is true that the Honor Committee is run solely by students - those who educate the community, advise the accused, and persecute the offenders. However, faculty and staff play an extremely important role that is conveniently left out by any pro-honor propaganda. A large proportion of the reported cases come from faculty as opposed to students, for example. Obviously, professors and teaching assistants would like to legitimize their courses by reporting offenders, but the low report rate from students suggests that the cost of permanent expulsion outweighs the benefits of trust. The Committee might be student-run, but the system is driven by faculty.
A second claim is that a student's written or verbal word is assumed to be honorable unless proven otherwise. The reality is that the honor pledge has lost all meaning. Students blindly recite what they have been programmed to do without reflection on the meaning of the words. The pledge alone is not enough to prevent teachers from taking added precautions against cheating. For many classes, there are multiple forms to tests. For a certain economics class, students were forced to show identification to pick up their own exams. Honor has also lost meaning outside the classroom. Aside from the controversial subjects such as Living Wage - the question being if it is honorable to pay someone so little that they cannot even afford comfortable living for them and their family - there are other instances where there is a lack of trust. Why would there be alarm detectors in libraries or bike locks if everyone were assumed to be honorable?
The third false claim associated with the honor system is its malleability. The Honor Committee gives surveys on a frequent basis to both faculty and students, which they claim is used for constructive criticism and analysis. However, as soon as anything negative emerges regarding honor, a representative is quick to defend the status quo. For instance, a lead editorial in this newspaper offering another possible explanation of plagiarism came under scrutiny by Former Vice Chair for Trials Brian O'Neill as he immediately dismissed this proposal without any further discussion. Last spring, when an honor referendum on the single sanction was up for vote, there were a handful of letters to the editor from Honor Committee members urging the student body to reject the referendum. In addition, they launched an initiative that could be argued as propaganda. Flyers were posted misinforming students about what the referendum was offering. For example, one flyer led students to believe that the referendum would expel them if they stole their roommate's Pop-tart. Is this a case of the Committee listening to the students or the Committee scaring us into their beliefs?
As a result of these shortcomings, it has become apparent that professors have taken matters into their own hands. In a 2006 survey by the Honor Committee, only one-quarter of faculty members polled said that they involve Honor if a student was observed cheating. They greatly preferred to talk to the student individually (84 percent) and took academic action themselves (67 percent). These professors must have either not trusted the honor process to convict guilty students or thought that expulsion was too harsh for the alleged act.
Since the Honor Committee seems reluctant to change from within, those who oppose the honor system need to help reform it. For students, it is simple. Do not dilute your word by sticking to it and do not give faculty a reason to suspect you of cheating, lying or stealing. For faculty, do not have students pledge work if you take other precautions against cheating as it belittles the pledge for classes that use it as the only deterrent against cheating. Additionally, teachers should take actions into their own hands - if cheating is suspected or observed, either lower the grade or fail the student for the assignment or course, instead of pursuing outright expulsion.
Hung Vu's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PAYNE: U.Va.’s acquisition of the FEI directly harms the children of Charlottesville
By Michael Payne | 19 minutes agoThe Department of Education rescinded its award to CCS and gave the FEI property to the University instead.
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 2 days agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 6 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
