The single sanction is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the University’s honor system. As evidenced by Cavalier Daily articles dating back at least a decade, the debate as to whether the single sanction should remain in place has been ongoing. Some cite tradition and the high standards of the community of trust as reasons to support the single sanction. Others see the single sanction as too harsh a consequence for an honor offense.
As highlighted by The Cavalier Daily’s previous Managing Board, the first two Honor referenda present a positive step towards accountability to the student body. However, the third referendum of the two support officers' proposal demonstrates a reluctance to fully allow the community to participate in the honor system by voting on the single sanction. It asks students whether Honor should consider a multi-sanction system in the next year. Delaying the vote shows the Honor Committee is perhaps not fully prepared to place the future of the honor system in the community’s hands by confronting the possibility that the single sanction is antithetical to the revitalization of the community of trust.
I am personally of the belief that the single sanction is simply too strong of a punishment for an honor violation, especially because expulsion from the University can have such varied effects on people in different circumstances. Even if you are fully on board with the single sanction in theory, it is pretty clear that it hinders the system from operating as intended. A recent study conducted by the Curry School of Education reported that 113 out of 115 students who witnessed an honor offense did not report it. Thirty-five percent did not report because the consequences would be too great for the student in question.
In November of this year, Honor and Sustained Dialogue co-sponsored an open event in order to evaluate student opinion on the single sanction. The event’s 58 participants were asked the question, “Do you support the single sanction?” Twenty-two students responded “yes” and 35 students responded “no.” As a moderator for this event, it seemed to me that opinion was fairly polarized, which suggests to me that it would be fairly split within the larger community as well. However, it is worth noting that the event was heavily attended by Honor support officers. The fact that a significant portion of the people most likely to be in favor of Honor’s policies questioned the effectiveness of the single sanction underscores my point. If the entire student body were allowed to vote, I would imagine the results would be even more obviously in support of a multi-sanction system.
It seems the authors of the proposal — and perhaps the Honor Committee — have not yet considered exactly what the mechanics of this implementation might be. However, it certainly makes more sense to vote on the issue and then spend the next year in preparation for its implementation rather than attempt to push back the decision even longer.
I fail to understand the point of surveying interest in whether the Committee should vote on the single sanction. Perhaps the reason the Committee and students in question seem hesitant to implement a multi-sanction system is the fact that the single sanction is a symbol for the seriousness of the community of trust. However, a system that holds traditional severity over willing participation is at odds with the very idea of a community founded in trust and admirable values. I am excited people within Honor seem to be recognizing the need for change. However, the referenda should be edited to afford students the chance to vote on the single sanction now rather than in 2016.
Mary Russo is a Senior Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.russo@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
