The Honor Committee recently discussed a report, "What is dishonorable behavior?," which proposed to expand the Committee's role by \nincorporating University Judiciary Committee and Sexual Assault Board trials. The report also mentioned expanding the Committee's jurisdiction to allow it to hold trials for offenses such as failing to pay rent, using illegal drugs or buying alcohol for underage people. A move in this direction by the Committee would be a mistake. Almost nothing could be worse than allowing the Committee to expand its reach into new domains.
The Committee already takes an incredibly small amount of offenses to trial every year despite the fact that some surveys at other universities have found that about two-thirds of students cheat. This is the state of affairs despite the existence of the single sanction, which mandates that the Committee punish students it finds guilty with expulsion from the school. Why, in this report, are some members of the Committee eager to begin applying the single sanction, a punishment designed to suit outdated sensibilities, to so many more offenses?
Some would argue the single sanction does indeed help cut down on the rates of honor offenses. If that were so, applying the sanction to other misdeeds would mean fewer of those misdeeds, too. The facts, however, clearly show this to be false. The Committee's 2008 survey of the student body showed that those who had witnessed honor offenses generally were not reporting them to the Committee. Respondents also did not want to bear responsibility for a fellow student's expulsion. People who might cheat or steal are aware of this reluctance and have no reason to stop, provided they are discreet enough. A student in 1972 said it best when he wrote, "Some say the Honor System works because of its single sanction. In fact, the Honor System works in spite of the single sanction."
If we had a multi-sanction system, with punishments which matched the severity of the offense, then people would be inclined to report these offenses. This is what it would take to reduce the amount of cheating and casual theft at the University. Right now, though, many students have no interest in seeing other students kicked out.
Simply put, giving the Committee the power to prosecute more offenses than lying, cheating or stealing will fail to make the "community of trust" any stronger.
Treating people fairly is necessary for justice, which should be the goal of any judicial system. Because of the frailty of the honor system, with many students and professors essentially refusing to participate, the Committee cannot be relied upon to treat offenses equally because so many incidents will evade being addressed. This means it is not a just system.
It is almost tempting to suggest the Committee continue with its power grab and take on the humorous and Herculean task of deciding where offenses end and acceptable behavior begins in all sanctionable day-to-day activities. Does cutting across grassy areas constitute stealing, because I am depriving people of an unspoiled view and costing the school extra grass seeds? Would the Committee be so noble as to make its members' unexcused absences from their meetings a sanctionable act of lying? These may sound ridiculous, but in 1971, the Committee held a trial and told a student he was expelled for stealing soda cans. A system which does not allow forgiveness or second chances is not about justice, it is about nakedly wielding power. We are still using that same single sanction today. The Committee is limited only by its own confused, draconian imagination while armed with the power of banishment.
If its members want to repair the system, as I would hope, then the Committee will focus on broadening the number of cases which come before its current, narrow focus by implementing a multi-sanction system. This is the only step which would logically lead to an increase in the number of reports and thus give people a reason to stop committing the offenses which actually degrade our community. If, however, our current Committees representatives wish to put on their r
Read More
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 10 hours agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
YOUNIS: The danger of dehumanizing language
By Ayat Younis | 4 days agoThe administration’s failure to condemn blatant discrimination exacerbates an impossible situation, fostering an atmosphere that misinterprets pro-Palestinian sentiments as support of terrorism.
