Vote or die! As much coverage as elections have received during the past few days, expect this Student Council election to have a lower voter turnout compared to the last. One reason for this is obvious: A handful of unopposed races means that fewer elected positions are actually being contested. That also means less people are likely to know the candidate's platform - or even the candidate themselves. The other major reason is that this year's election lacks the controversial honor referendum that was proposed last year. Although these candidates worked hard on their campaigns, part of the glory of victory will be removed and the bitterness of loss will be tainted knowing that only thirty to forty percent of the student body participated. Therefore, in order to increase the relevance of this election, I am unofficially proposing a referendum for the University Judiciary Committee to make it more closely resemble the Honor Committee. That's right: The UJC needs a single sanction.
If last election taught us anything, it is that single sanction is appropriate for certain offenses, namely cheating, lying or stealing. Last year, the student voice was strong in their rejection of the honor referendum's proposal for a new system in place of the single sanction. This was student self-governance at its finest: Students proposed a referendum for a student-run committee that was ultimately slammed by 70 percent of voting students.
Though student self-governance shone at its brightest, the University's world reputation took a big hit. Anywhere outside of Charlottesville's college community, any reasonable person would deem any of the other issues covered by UJC - such as assault, reckless endangerment, and trespassing - to be a greater threat to one's honor than cheating, lying, or stealing. We, the students, glossed over this when we decided to uphold single sanction for Honor but excused UJC for being so lenient on their punishments. The honor system has included single sanction for decades, but UJC is lagging behind.
Currently, UJC uses nine levels of punishment, including expulsion. By my math, that adds up to eight unnecessary levels of sanction. Why waste time giving "admonitions," "fines," or "work sanctions" when the only punishment needed is expulsion? Why should anyone deserve a second chance?
This brings up the point of triviality, which would need to be included in the referendum as well. Those involved would have to determine whether or not a violation of the standard of conduct is serious enough for expulsion. On obvious matters such as jaywalking or streaking the Lawn, there would be no need for trial. But what about the murky areas where it is unclear if a violation is serious enough? If we are to follow honor precedent, then a cutoff point might be the equivalent of 10 percent of a class grade during your senior year - see Jason Smith, 2009. Anything more than that would clearly be grounds for expulsion, but anything less than that would be shrugged off. Black and white, simple as that.
The UJC equivalent of 10 percent of a class grade would be section 12: "Failure to comply with directions of University officials," or section 7: "Alteration, fabrication, or misuse of, or obtaining unauthorized access to University identification cards, other documents, or computer files or systems." That means that if your resident adviser tells you to go to sleep and you insist on making noise, you might be facing expulsion. Additionally, if you find a wallet on the ground, be careful picking it up, because you might be in wrongful possession of another person's student ID, which spells expulsion.
As Mr. Jefferson once said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." Last year's elections showed that the times are changing, but honor remains stagnant, meaning either the Honor Committee's bylaws must be ahead of its time, or 70 percent of the University is failing in the "progress of the human mind." Clearly, a majority as overwhelming as 70 percent cannot be in the wrong, so the cause of honor must be advanced while UJC is struggling to keep up.
Let us follow Mr. Jefferson's advice and bring the old institution up-to-date with a referendum that will hopefully transform UJC to be more like the honor system. After all, these colors - navy and orange - don't run, even if the right thing to do is to swallow our pride and admit that last year's honor referendum was a better alternative to single sanction.
Hung Vu's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SHRAUGER: Protect City Council funding for Central Virginia Violence Interrupters
By Alex Shrauger | 22 hours agoEntrusting people with a criminal background to facilitate nonviolent intervention and providing in-depth training in crime prevention is possibly the best alternative to police funding or further, more costly initiatives.
WASSERMAN: The Cavalier Daily got it wrong on UVa.’s discrimination cases
By Barbara Wasserman | YesterdayThat framing is not just misleading — it obscures the real failures of University leadership and the courage of the students who stood up to them.
EDITORIAL: Virginia’s political parties have left our universities boarded up
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoThe destabilizing consequences of the present appointment process have revealed critical and unsustainable fault lines that rest within our political system.
