The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

EDITORIAL: Elect representatives who will make Honor more equitable

The Editorial Board endorses six candidates to serve as Honor representatives

<p>The Editorial Board has is endorsing Gabrielle Bray, Christian Smith, Andy Chambers, Charlotte Paulussen, Jack Stone and Maggie Regnery.</p>

The Editorial Board has is endorsing Gabrielle Bray, Christian Smith, Andy Chambers, Charlotte Paulussen, Jack Stone and Maggie Regnery.

This year, The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board endorses four candidates running for College Representatives for Honor — second-year Gabrielle Bray and third-years Christian Smith, Andy Chambers and Charlotte Paulussen. The Editorial Board is also endorsing two candidates running for Commerce Representatives for Honor — third-years Jack Stone and Maggie Regnery, who are running on a joint platform.

Christian Smith has already served two terms as an Honor Representative for the College. Smith understands how the system works, and how to effectively enact the change needed to make Honor a more equitable system. While serving, Smith has seen the inequities that exist within the system and how the system disproportionately affects international and marginalized students. As such, Smith’s biggest goal is working towards abolishing the single sanction and moving toward a multi-sanction system. However, he understands that he cannot do this himself — as such, he wants to work with different organizations around Grounds to have those conversations and set up a working group to make sure people’s voices are heard. He hopes to have legislation written up for the coming year to be sure the issues within Honor are addressed quickly so that students are finally able to have an Honor system that works for them. Smith clearly believes in listening to the student body, which will allow him to implement the changes self-governed students most want to see.  

Gabrielle Bray currently serves as a support officer in Honor, working as both an investigator and a counselor. With her experience on Honor, it is clear that she has a deep understanding of both how the system works, as well as how it impacts students. As such, she wants to work as much as she can to make Honor better, and she knows that there are tangible ways to do this. She addressed how the Informed Retraction affects students in different ways, noting that students who cannot afford to take the time off face the full extent of Honor — expulsion for a guilty sentence — while those who can afford it do not and opt for a two-year leave of absence under the IR. As such, she plans to at the very least give a thorough reevaluation of the process, implementing a more accurate polling of the student body to see what her constituents want from Honor. She has a very clear understanding of the issues within Honor, and her experience and ideas make us confident that she will be able to address these issues in a meaningful manner as a representative. 

Andy Chambers has a vast array of experience within Honor — he currently serves as an Honor Representative for the College and as the vice chair for hearings. He’s been involved in Honor since the first semester of his first year, and has always taken an active role within the organization, co-leading selections and pushing for more diverse support officer pools. This experience allows him to very clearly understand where Honor has faults — for example, he notes that the main issue with the single sanction is that it simply does not work in a fair and just way. As such, he hopes to move Honor towards a multi-sanction system, offering students a chance to vote on what these different sanctions would be. Further, Chambers notes the major issues that exist with the Informed Retraction, and how it disproportionately affects students who cannot afford to take the time off from the University. Thus, he proposes eliminating the IR entirely or, at the very least, reforming it significantly. The experience that Chambers has, combined with his ability to recognize the issues that exist within Honor, make him an incredibly qualified candidate ready to make Honor a more equitable system. 

Charlotte Paulussen is another candidate with a vast array of experience in Honor. She has been on Honor since her first semester of first year, and has been trained in all three roles, as an educator, investigator and counselor. However, she now focuses in an advising role, as she is drawn to helping students and professors going through the process. Now a senior advisor, Paulussen clearly believes in making Honor work for the student body. It has been through her advising role that she has recognized the inequities that exist within the Honor system, serving as multi-sanction for those who can afford to take an IR and single-sanction for those students who are unable to do so. In relation to these inequities within the IR, she notes that her ultimate goal is to make sure that the sanctions with the IR are educational, whether this be community service or education requirements. If, however, the two-semester leave of absence has to remain, she wants to make sure students taking this absence are equipped with all the resources necessary to be able to return to the University — in her eyes, students going through the process need to be prioritized. Paulussen also recognizes the disproportionate levels of reporting against marginalized communities, and wants to work with different student organizations on Grounds to make sure this issue is a priority. Paulussen is running for this position for the students — she knows where the issues are and she knows what needs to be done to address them. 

Jack Stone has been a support officer on Honor since his first year, serving as both a counselor and an investigator. If elected he hopes to implement constitutional changes in order to streamline the process and make it more equitable so cases are never prolonged. Stone also hopes to eliminate the supposed single sanction system that currently exists in order to have a much simpler Honor system. He says the current system, while claiming to be single sanction, actually operates as a multi-sanction system and is very confusing for many students. In eliminating this confusion, he hopes to see more consistent results in Honor. Hoping to give as much due process to students as possible, Stone proposes a triple-sanction system be used where the options are being suspended for one semester, having an entire year of leave or being expelled. He says committee panels would use these sanctions on a case-by-case basis depending on the severity of the case. Lastly, Stone hopes to address the Honor Committee’s disproportionate effect on marginalized students by implementing proper training, getting rid of the student panel and increasing diversity within Honor itself. Based on his previous experience and future aspirations, we are endorsing Stone, as we believe he is a qualified and admirable candidate.

Regnery joined Honor as a first-year and is currently serving as an Investigating Coordinator. Like Stone, she also aims to implement a system in order to finish Honor cases much more quickly since prolonging cases is not effective. Additionally, Regnery believes the single sanction system is ineffective, saying that a multi-sanction system would allow for more people to face accountability for actso of lying, cheating and stealing. She also believes that their needs to be increased communication with the University community since these outcomes directly impact them. Further, Regnery also aims to increase diversity within Honor by reaching out to CIOs and improving outreach during the application process. She hopes this will increase the number of LGBTQ+ students and racial and ethnic minorities applying to be on Honor. The Editorial Board believes Regnery is qualified and dedicated to the position.

Comments