The Honor Committee introduced last night the first draft of a new legislative proposal that would offer an alternative penalty to the single sanction for students who are informed they are under investigation for an honor offense.
Such an "informed retraction" would allow students to admit formally to an honor offense and return to the University after leaving for the remainder of the semester and completing a suspension period of two full academic semesters.
Chair Ann Marie McKenzie said informed retraction would be "an option for students to admit to their wrongdoing and avoid the trial process and the single sanction."
The tentative legislation must undergo a student body vote before being permanently implemented.
Under the proposal, a student may submit an informed retraction to the Committee within 10 days of being notified that he has potentially committed an honor offense. Students will be given the "evidence and witness testimony" against them before submitting an informed retraction, and the retraction can only be used for a single honor offense during a student's time at the University.
Before submitting an informed retraction, a student must describe the act and recognize the "knowledge and significance" of the offense in accordance with the Committee's definition of an honor offense in its constitution.
Upon returning the to the University after suspension, the individual's transcript will permanently include a notation reading "Honor System Suspension," the legislation reads. The student will then be permitted to "reenter the Community of Trust" and resume classes.
At last night's meeting, Committee members voiced a number of concerns about the legislation.
Batten School Rep. Michael Karlik spoke in support of an informed retraction, saying it will "give people [the] opportunity to learn from their mistake." He said the Committee is often criticized for being unfair or inflexible, but by taking up the informed retraction, "we have the chance to introduce something to the honor system - something fair."
Erich Merkel, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences representative, noted that the change could improve the Committee's efficiency.
"Every student who does file an informed retraction is a student who doesn't go to trial," he said.
Several committee members were skeptical of an informed retraction, however.
Darden School Rep. Bryan West said because the single sanction rule is so straightforward, an informed retraction option would open up "a giant gateway to a 'get out of jail free' pass every time."
Darden School Rep. Whitney Dickerson said some students may be willing to take more honor offense risks with the knowledge they cannot be expelled permanently for violating the honor code. "I think it's great for students that are bettering themselves, but it will erode the community of trust as a byproduct," Dickerson said.
Similarly, College Rep. Remy Wheat said all the opportunities for self-improvement embedded in this legislation are already offered through the conscientious retraction option, which allows students to recognize an honor offense before a report has been filed. "To me, [an informed retraction option] seems like someone hedging their bets," Wheat said.
Members also voiced concerns about the implications of adding a complex idea to an already complex system that is often not fully understood by the accused or student body at large.
Vice Chair for Education Carter Haughton said the current system provides an incentive for accused students to lie their way through their trials because there is no more punishment beyond the sanction of expulsion. For example, if a student is accused and knows he is guilty, in the current system, he can lie through the trial to "convince people that you didn't commit an honor offense in the first place."
In addition to weighing the costs and benefits of the informed retraction system as a whole, the Committee went on to analyze certain criteria within the tentative legislation. The discussion revolved around how much information a student should be given about his trial when given the opportunity to file an informed retraction. Currently, the proposal reads, "Students will be able to see all evidence and witness testimony submitted during their investigation before submitting an informed retraction."
Karlik agreed with the language in the proposal, saying students should have a clear understanding of their charges before they are able to retract their offense. Not doing so is "ammunition for the person to criticize the honor system as opaque," he said.
Several Committee members pointed out potential flaws in allowing students to view all the evidence against them and using that information to weigh their decision of whether or not to file an informed retraction.
"Students should get just enough information that they know what they're being charged for," Law School Rep. Barlow Mann said. "You can provide a clear idea without giving them entire evidence in [a] trial."
Haughton said giving an accused person that information may promote "strategic decision-making," and students might consider what information the Committee does and does not have and how strong that might hold against a student.
The Committee plans to further debate the legislation in upcoming meetings.
Read More
U.Va. researchers identify that HIV drugs can protect against Alzheimer’s disease
By Lauren Seeliger | 2 days agoDoctor Jayakrishna Ambati and his research team have begun work on a new drug called K9 which could treat and prevent Alzheimer’s.
Graduating students share their future plans as they enter the job market
By Nina Broderick | 4 days agoMany students find the Career Center to be a valuable tool during the job search and application process.
U.Va.’s Finals Weekend spotlights the achievement and service of the Class of 2025
By Leigh Bailey | 5 days agoIn University President Jim Ryan’s welcome address, he acknowledged the support of family members and friends present in the audience and beyond that played supportive roles in these graduates’ lives.
