13 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/05/13 4:14am)
In a month, students will have the opportunity to vote on a proposal that would drastically change the honor system. We recognize and embrace the fact that one of the paramount ideals of the University is student self-governance. As former Honor Committee members and support officers, we students and alumni write to you, not to attempt to instruct you how to think or vote. Rather, we wish to raise concerns about this proposal that we believe have gone largely unaddressed in the current debate. These concerns are shared by many who have a wide diversity of views about the honor system and we hope you might give them serious consideration.
(04/21/09 5:43am)
University students should be disappointed by the movement to protest the selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson as this year’s Commencement speaker. Proponents of the movement have, on these pages and elsewhere, made straight-faced suggestions that opinions like those expressed by Judge Wilkinson are not welcome at U.Va. How embarrassing for us all.Their words speak for themselves. A comment on the movement’s online petition, for instance, proclaims that “[t]o choose a speaker with such a closed conservative mind, who has spoken out against same sex marriage, the Equal Rights Amendment, and abortion is offensive to all women, people of different sexual orientations, and all those who support them. It would be a travesty to have such a person represent the University and deliver a speech about the future, considering his very backward opinions.”Inexplicably, the movement’s petition insists that U.Va.’s Commencement Ceremony should “signify ... our dedication to diverse opinions.” Perhaps feeling the pinch of irony, Wilkinson critics often say that their real complaint is about the process by which he was selected. But whatever is said about the selections process, the partisan motives behind those complaints are usually on full display. As others have noted, nobody seemed to lodge these complaints when more liberal speakers were chosen. All of this is so disturbing because Wilkinson is hardly the fringe conservative his critics have concocted. In an article in the Washington Post, U.Va. Student Amelia Meyer said that U.Va. students “rightly” see Wilkinson’s views on gay marriage as a “threat and an insult to many gay students and advocates.” After reading Meyer’s column, I decided to read Wilkinson’s article on the issue for the first time. I could not believe it. In “Hands Off Constitutions,” published on Sept. 5, 2006 in the Washington Post, Wilkinson argues against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Seriously. He says “The Framers ... did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does.” He explained that “To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country’s founding charter as their own.” Wilkinson argues that the legality of gay marriage is a difficult issue whose resolution requires consideration of both the notion that “[i]t is not wrong for gay citizens to wish to share fully in the life of this country” and the countervailing sense that “[m]arriage between male and female is more than a matter of biological complementarity.” Because this is a difficult issue, Wilkinson argues, the future of gay marriage should be left to the legislative process.What’s more, in an article on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Wilkinson said that he was unable to “join in the jubilation” of other conservatives over the Court’s decision to recognize an individual right to bear arms. He argued that Heller — written by Justice Scalia — conflicts with conservatives’ long-standing argument that judges should not let their private political beliefs influence their interpretations of the law. This is the man more than 400 U.Va. students have petitioned to exclude from the University’s commencement — a fair minded, moderate conservative, and long-time friend of the University. As frighteningly few others have observed, the fact that so many students could so casually and publicly claim that mainstream conservative views have no place at U.Va. exposes the superficiality of our community’s commitment to true diversity — intellectual diversity. The University’s vice president and chief executive officer for diversity and equity’s Web site says that “we envision a community of understanding, tolerance, and respect.” Yet, where is the response to the past months’ displays of misunderstanding and intolerance — from the Chief Diversity Officer, student proponents of diversity, or anyone, really? The Web site offers an answer: the Vice President’s office is mainly concerned with “staff and students from historically underrepresented groups.” On matters of diversity, only race, gender, and sexual orientation matter at U.Va. Little else could explain the casual way in which students have declared Judge Wilkinson’s ideas unwelcome — or the failure by so many others to respond forcefully.At any college, the diversity that should matter most is intellectual diversity. This is the place for the free combat of ideas and for students of all stripes to have their assumptions challenged. Unfortunately, recent events suggest that just the opposite is happening at the University. Students are prepared to graduate with the misconception that their beliefs are the only ones that should matter — that this entire community agrees with them on issues which, in fact, divide the nation. For this, I am confident that Wilkinson’s critics are right about one thing. All of this will “probably make Mr. Jefferson turn over in his grave” (“Let the Humiliation Commence,” March 17). Josh Hess is third-year student in the Law School.
(02/04/09 5:53am)
Our honor system isn’t perfect. But imagine it was far worse. Imagine a system bent on punishing every indiscretion — punishing students for “trivial” acts of lying, cheating, and stealing with sanctions as grave as suspension. And imagine that three members of the Honor Committee could suspend students for a “trivial” act of dishonesty without even affording them the opportunity to appeal the sanction. This is the system put to referendum in the coming spring election. Whether you support or oppose the single sanction, we should all be united in voting against this referendum. Essentially, the proposal would eliminate the current requirement that only “non-trivial” honor offenses be sanctioned by the Committee. Under the new system, every offense — trivial or non-trivial — could be sanctioned. If a jury decides that a student has committed an act of lying, cheating, or stealing, but thinks the act is just “trivial,” the proposal requires that three Committee members choose a punishment from a sanctioning menu that includes suspension. The costs of this change will be substantial. Whether or not the single sanction is fair or effective, it is hard to deny that its simple, unambiguous gravity does a lot to communicate the importance of honor to new members of our community. A multiple sanction system vitiates that by diluting the clarity of that message. What is more, the proposal decimates regular students’ ability to decide whether the Committee’s sanctions comport with the student body’s sense of fairness. The Committee will have unilateral power to define the spectrum of sanctions for “trivial offenses” so long as it keeps The Cavalier Daily in the loop. The new system would introduce new unfairness into the system. Students who are found guilty of a trivial honor offense lose most of the rights listed in the Committee’s constitution. They cannot confront the person they are sanctioned by or appeal the sanctioning decision to a higher body — even if they are suspended. What, if any, good would the proposal do? Importantly, this change will not decrease cheating rates. Really, the proposal can only hope to “accomplish” two things. As The Cavalier Daily Managing Board argued last semester: “Some students who would be expelled under the current system might receive lesser sanctions, and some students who now receive no punishment might receive some sanction less than expulsion.” If you are someone who thinks the primary purpose of the honor system is punishment, not deterrence, this might give you some pause. But our current system does not want for adequate punishment. Generally, more than half of students officially accused of offenses are convicted. Even if you believe the current system is inadequate as a way of catching and punishing deserving offenders, this proposal is not for you. The new system is not going to significantly increase the number of serious or even border-line serious offenses that are reported to the Honor Committee. The faculty who don’t report serious (“non-trivial”) offenses because they don’t have enough evidence will still confront the same evidentiary burdens. Those who think the process takes too long will confront a process potentially even longer. And, significantly, the faculty who don’t report offenses because they think expulsion is too harsh will still not report serious or border-line serious cases. After all, under the proposal, expulsion is still the default in every case. There is no way for a hesitant professor to know for sure whether the offense is subject to expulsion until after the student has been investigated, tried, and convicted. Remarkably, the only significant uptick in reporting and punishment will be for truly “trivial” offenses — the white lies. People normally deterred from reporting moderately serious offenses because of the prospect of expulsion can report truly trivial offenses without realistic concern that expulsion will result. In the end, reasonable students can disagree about the efficacy of the single sanction. But those who at least agree that the honor system is an important part of the University experience should resolutely reject this proposal. Josh Hess is a third-year Law student and former Honor Committee Vice Chair for Community Relations.
(04/15/08 4:00am)
THE HONOR Committee is locked in an endless cycle of self-destruction. Governed by students, a large majority of those whom come to the Committee completely new for one-year terms, the Committee has virtually no institutional memory and is destined to make the same mistakes repeatedly. The 2008-2009 Honor Committee's decision to reconstitute the single sanction "ad hoc" is the quintessence of this destructive cycle.
(09/25/07 4:00am)
IT IS hard to maintain a successful honor system at a large, public university. The success of a system which seeks to uphold values of academic integrity depends upon its ability to continually encourage student commitment to those values. Consequently, the great project of this year's Honor Committee is to find creative new ways to encourage student ownership of the honor system.
(11/28/06 5:00am)
IN THE honor system's 160 year history, no generation of University students has ever said it could no longer meet the high standard set by the single sanction. Even the classes of Vietnam, for whom dismissal from the University meant eligibility for the military draft, did not waver.
(10/18/06 4:00am)
KERNELS of growing faculty cynicism constitute one of the more worrisome trends facing the University's honor system. I cannot offer any empirical evidence to say that faculty alienation from honor is worse today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. But in my experience as a counsel for the system, I've come across several instances in which it seems almost entire departments appear to be hesitant to engage the system.
(08/25/06 4:00am)
THE UNIVERSITY'S honor system is strong. It is staffed by over a hundred enthusiastic students who sacrifice hundreds of man hours every year to ensure its upkeep. Empirical evidence suggests the system is successful in minimizing cheating. And it enjoys support from a strong (though not universal) majority of students and faculty.
(03/28/06 5:00am)
THE JURY is in on the merits and demerits of the single sanction, and it remains the best sanctioning system for the University's Honor System.
(02/27/06 5:00am)
ABOUT a year ago, opponents of the single sanction demonstrated the depth of their resolve to eliminate the organizing principle of our honor system. They began collecting signatures to force the "forgiveness clause," a proposed alternative to the single sanction, on the spring ballot. This happened despite the fact that the Honor Committee voted down the proposal as an unworkable sanctioning regime and that even The Cavalier Daily said it was a bad idea. Opponents of the single sanction are recklessly determined to do anything they can to end the sanction, no matter what happens to the health of the honor system.
(11/18/05 5:00am)
NOBODY who earnestly cares about the tradition of honor at the University is excited that College third years Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung get to graduate with the rest of us and say "I have worn the honors of Honor, I graduated from Virginia." In last week's open trial, both were found to have committed an act of cheating by a jury of their peers. But they were found "not guilty" of an honor offense because the jury perplexingly decided that the offense was not "inconsistent with the values of our community of trust" -- that they did not satisfy the "seriousness" clause.
(11/17/04 5:00am)
AS THE only surviving feature from the honor system's inception in 1842, the single sanction remains today as an exceptionally high standard of academic integrity largely unique to the University. Current proponents of the sanction believe it is the best way to maintain a community of trust, raising expectations of student honesty well above contemporary standards. Opponents of the sanction, however, see it as a relic of Southern gentility, a standard which may have been appropriate a century and a half ago but which seems too stringent in 2004. Whether the standard set by the sanction is too tough after 162 years is a debate worth having. However, it is unfortunate that opponents of the single sanction have been unwilling to have it.
(09/18/02 4:00am)
The Idealistic ignorance of the liberal ideology has never been more offensive to me than it was on the eve of the anniversary of September 11. It was on this date that I found myself in attendance at a University "teach-in" hosted by Student Council that was purported to have been a discussion of the terrorist attacks last fall.