32 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/24/13 2:08am)
It was with a great deal of interest that I received an e-mail from the University recently about a proposed reform to the honor system. Having spent seven years at the University as a Double Hoo — undergraduate and law school — I have a natural interest in its activities, but the honor system was particularly my interest. I was a counsel for six of my seven years, defending nearly two dozen students accused of honor offenses. More than that, I co-founded the student group that led the opposition to the single sanction while I was there, and in 2007, we put forward a true multi-sanction system that fell just 62 votes short of a majority of the student body — less than 1 percent of those voting. Since graduating and entering the “real world,” my confidence that the single sanction is an anachronism that does far more harm to the University than good has only been re-confirmed, repeatedly. So, Honor-related news always interests me.
(02/10/09 6:54am)
NEXT WEEK students are going to have the opportunity to vote to make a major change to the way our honor system operates. The Sanction Reform Amendment appearing on the ballot is the result of years of thought, discussion, and hard work. Unfortunately, those wedded to the status quo have already begun an effort to distort what the proposal actually does through misleading editorials and by spreading misinformation, all meant to scare the student body into keeping things the way they are. As a result, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the student body what the proposal does, and what it does not do.First, the proposal does allow students to appeal their sanctions. Only the narrowest of readings of the Honor Constitution could come to the conclusion that the right to appeal a sanction is not present with the proposal, and even then, any reasonable implementing by-laws from the Honor Committee would most certainly include this right. However, it is clear from the honor constitution’s wording that the appeal clause would apply to sanctioning.Second, our proposal will encourage increased reporting of honor offenses. This is because when juries have the choice between expulsion or a lesser sanction, expulsion is truly in the hands of the juries, and juries will be making the conscious decision to expel a student. In today’s system, juries must choose between expelling a student and not punishing the student at all. This is not a real choice, so the burden of making students face expulsion rests on the shoulders of the reporter, something that will no longer be true under our system. Additionally, many reports do not happen because faculty or students feel they will spend all their time focused on the case, only to have the offense deemed “trivial” and the accused student walk away without penalty. The proposal changes this as well. Many people have already expressed that they would be much more willing to report cases under our system than they are today.Finally, truly trivial acts will not be punished by suspension. While the proposal does require suspension as an available lesser sanction, it also requires the availability of additional sanctions. We must remember that the Committee’s definition of “trivial” is not the dictionary’s definition. In past open trials, “trivial” acts have included lying to the University Judiciary Committee about sanctions and collaborating on homework worth 10% of a student’s grade in the class. Suspension will be used for those more serious “trivial” acts, as well as the few acts likely found non-trivial today which will no longer be found non-trivial when juries know that finding an act trivial will not result in a student facing no penalty at all. It is absurd, on the other hand, to believe any sanctioning panel would impose suspension, or any severe sanction, for the truly trivial acts, and if this were to happen, backlash would certainly end the practice.I would like to turn to what the proposal really does. The proposal takes the current system and gives it a boost. Much of it is kept in place, while adding in sanctioning for “trivial” offenses that send a clear message that our honor system no longer simply tolerates minor acts of lying, cheating and stealing, but that we tolerate no dishonorable act at this University. Adopting the proposal will dramatically decrease the many honor offenses that go unreported every year, will ameliorate the problems created by racial spotlighting and dimming and wrongful convictions, end the current encouragement for accused students to lie, and allow the honor system to once and for all meet the old judicial maxim to “treat like cases alike, and different cases differently.”It is my profound hope that the student body will ignore the other side’s misleading rhetoric, and take the time to get to know the issue and the proposal. If you do, you will see that the proposal is not the scary beast the other side wants to make it out to be, but is really the best proposal possible to keep honor in its place of distinction at the University while improving on all of the problems created by the single sanction. Next week, vote ‘yes’ on sanction reform.Sam Leven is a second-year in the Law School and President of Hoos Against Single Sanction. You can find HASS online at www.savehonor.com.
(10/08/08 6:34am)
IT IS AN annual tradition of fall orientation. First years, graduate students, and transfer students all pack in to rooms to learn about the University’s exalted honor system. The Honor Committee sends representatives to this meeting to teach our new students about all the history, tradition and ideology behind the honor system. Certainly, the honor system’s history is riveting, its traditions are a core part of this school, and the ideology is about as lofty and optimistic as an honor system’s ideology can get. Unfortunately, the Honor Committee does not teach our new students the whole story.The honor system has held its important status at the University not because of the single sanction of automatic expulsion, but because of student control and ownership of the system. There is no administrative oversight of our honor system, and to students escaping the grip of “grown-ups” in high school or other schools, there is nothing cooler than a system with so much power which is completely controlled by them. This is as it should be. The Honor Committee’s tendency, however, to tie the honor system’s success and vaunted status with the single sanction of automatic expulsion needlessly ties our great honor system with the severe problems created by our deeply flawed single sanction.Students are unwilling to report their fellow students knowing expulsion will be the result. Surveys have shown that well over 2,000 honor offenses may be going unreported every year, and the single sanction is always named as one of the top reasons for non-reporting. The devastating effects of this problem, and others, is being felt all around Grounds.The Honor Committee tells us the single sanction creates a community of trust, where everyone can trust everyone else in the University. Well, tell that to the law student whose laptop and credit cards were stolen at a time that only students could get into the building. Tell that to the third-year college student who twice had his wallet stolen from a student-only area open locker in the AFC. Tell that to the professor that stopped giving take-home exams after rampant cheating was found year after year. Tell that to the Engineering School second-year who can no longer work in teams for several of his classes because cheating was just too common. If there ever was a true community of trust here, it has been rapidly evaporating.The Honor Committee tells us the single sanction impresses our future employers, because they know we are honorable if we graduated from the University. Tell that to the student whose job interviewer asked him, “Why does the University distrust its students so much that the only way they think they will prevent dishonesty is to threaten students with expulsion?” Tell that to the student whose employer asked, point blank, “How do I know you are not just one of the students who got away with it, or simply did not get reported?” Tell that to the student who was told at one job interview that, “A ‘single sanction’ is so far from the real world that it is absurd to say that this honor system makes students better qualified for the work force.” If employers ever were impressed by the single sanction, their numbers are fading today.The Honor Committee tells us the single sanction is a core tradition of our school, and sends a message of how much we care about honorable behavior. This, however, is woefully ignorant of the honor system’s history. The single sanction was initially adopted in the late 1800’s as a concession by students, offered in exchange for faculty acquiescence to student control of the system. Additionally, a system that sacrifices deterrence and prevention of dishonorable behavior in exchange for an antiquated notion of punishment sends no message of respect for honorable behavior, simply a message of rigid adherence to a senseless ideal. No, the true tradition of our honor system is the student run nature that our early predecessors fought hard for, and the true message of respect for honorable behavior is adoption of a plan to actually prevent dishonorable behavior, instead of just “sending a message” while having a cheating rate consistently found to be no lower than that of any other school with an honor code.The Honor Committee does not tell the whole story of the honor system because they fear that students will begin pushing for change. It is my hope, however, that our new students will look past the hype and recognize the truth. Our system is great, but it needs change. The single sanction needs to come to an end.Sam Leven is a second year in the Law School. He graduated from the College in 2007, was the founder of Hoos Against Single Sanction, and is a counsel in the honor system.
(11/07/07 5:00am)
YOU WOULD think that people supposedly dedicated to honor and integrity would be more allergic to chronic deception. Unfortunately, that is all we seem to get these days from many members of the pro-single sanction camp on this year's Honor Committee.
(02/22/07 5:00am)
THIS WEEK, students at the University will get the opportunity to make their first substantive vote on sanction reform in five years. While this vote is "non-binding," in reality, it impacts the entire future of the debate. Should this vote pass, students just next year will get the opportunity to put it into effect. However, in the lead-up to this election, those opposed to reform have been flinging all sorts of unsubstantiated charges at the proposal presented by our group, Hoos Against Single Sanction, just hoping one will stick.I would like to use this opportunity to clear up any confusion about our proposal.
(11/29/06 5:00am)
AS WE RETURNED from our Thanksgiving break, the pro-single sanction camp has given us yet another frightening look at their world, this time in the form of a column by Josh Hess ("Don't surrender the single sanction," Nov. 28). In this column, Hess practically admonishes the University for even considering our organization's proposal to change the single sanction and unloads his "regret" for opposing the forgiveness clause two years ago. The fact is, however, Hess is not being honest with you about our proposal, nor is he being honest with you about the real reason his camp has responded so ferociously as compared to their typical responses: They know our proposal is good and that, as a result, it might pass.
(10/19/06 4:00am)
IN THE wake of last month's open trial of Stephanie Garrison, it seems like the honor debate is unfortunately spiraling into the realm of the extremes. While it is certain that something here went wrong (both in honor's horrendous mishandling of Garrison's first trial and also in that a student could get away with lying, not only to the UJC, but to the entire University), the extremist responses from both sides simply are not warranted. It is time to pull back from the intense rhetoric and look for real solutions.
(11/30/05 5:00am)
IT IS A funny thing to see the retreat of the pro-single sanction camp. First, the single sanction was a grand deterrent that stopped lying, cheating and stealing dead in its tracks. Once that turned out to be untrue, the single sanction suddenly became the way that we tell the outside world that lying, cheating and stealing isn't tolerated here, and that if you're caught, you're gone. Now, after the open honor trial of Nov. 13 proved even this untrue, the single sanction has become a symbol to show the world that we uphold an ideal. In his guest column on Nov. 18 ("Trusting first, sanctioning second"), Josh Hess declares that an optimally efficient penal system is not the honor system that generations of our predecessors at the University wanted. Now, if that quote doesn't scare you, it should.
(07/25/05 4:00am)
WHEN SETTLING in to your new home at the University of Virginia, much of what surrounds you will likely be overwhelming. Very quickly, first-years get overrun with mailings and fliers inviting you to join this group or that, telling you what classes you should take, and all making it sound like your happiness for the next four years depends on the decisions you make in the first two weeks of school. Well, relax. Many of the decisions you make early on can be changed and very little is irreversible. However, there is one thing which can, in fact, be greatly helped or hurt your very first day at the University, that will affect your experience for the entire school year: your relationship with those you live with.
(06/30/05 4:00am)
AS THE summer has gotten underway, the American political landscape is, as has become normal of late, red hot. The talk of reaching across the aisle spoken by both sides following the 2004 elections has given way to partisan wrangling and battle after battle showing that bipartisanship, for all intents and purposes, seems dead in American political life. As the rhetoric seems to only get worse and worse, the hope that proper discourse and true compromise will return to American politics seems to be fading fast.
(04/28/05 4:00am)
LAST WEEK, Mohammed Kenbib, Professor of History at Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, came to the University to speak about Morocco's history of Jews and Muslims living together peacefully. Throughout his presentation, Kenbib spoke of how Jews and Muslims in Morocco have gotten along for centuries, and the role that each community has played in the other's society. Kenbib provided an optimistic outlook in an area that is often shrouded in pessimism.
(04/19/05 4:00am)
AS YET another class registration period comes to a close, the University is abuzz with all the same old complaints that always come up around this time. Whether it be "The class I need for my major is filled with first-year Echols scholars," or "I couldn't get to my computer at my registration time," or "ISIS was too slow," the same complaints are uttered every semester as bitter students try to figure out why all their desired classes are full by the time they sign up.
(04/12/05 4:00am)
FOR US political junkies, there is no state quite like Virginia. It is a rare place in America that never has an off year in politics. This year is no exception. Just as we are settling down after an intense presidential campaign, it is time now to turn our attention to the governor's race taking place here this year which will be decided this Nov. 8.
(04/05/05 4:00am)
TAKE A deep breath and prepare yourself, because what I'm about to tell you may shock you: College students have sex. Not shocked? Good, you shouldn't be, unless you've been living in a hole during your time at the University. Unfortunately, many administrators both at the University and in Richmond seem to be unaware of this fact, or just simply choose to ignore it.
(03/25/05 5:00am)
WHILE WE students were on Spring Break, many of us found ourselves drawn in on Friday, March 11 to the story of Brian Nichols. Nichols, who was on trial for rape, had escaped from custody allegedly by grabbing a policeman's gun, shooting and killing the judge, court reporter and another guard, then hijacking several cars and fleeing. As the case unfolded, the entire city of Atlanta (where the incident had taken place) seemed to shut down, as Nichols fled with nothing to lose. After all, he assuredly faced the death penalty if caught. Once again, the death penalty had failed to serve the people it was supposed to protect.
(02/01/05 5:00am)
ON SATURDAY, Jan. 22, the nation marked the 32 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in the United States. As happens every year with this anniversary, protest marches were held by both sides of the issue across the country, inflammatory columns were written, names were called and as usual, no useful debate was held.
(01/25/05 5:00am)
AS THE Democratic Party continues its attempt to recover from its devastating defeat in the November elections, the party now faces an election of its own. In February, Terry McAuliffe will step aside as Democratic National Committee chair and will be replaced by one of seven men running for the position.
(12/07/04 5:00am)
ONE of the hot-button issues on campuses across America this election year was whether or not the military draft would be re-instated. Pointing to the ongoing war on terror and the problems in Iraq, those saying the draft was going to be re-instated would argue that the United States could no longer carry out the military operations it wished to without the draft.
(11/23/04 5:00am)
When President Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" statement, it was not only his intention to raise awareness of the three countries named (Iraq, Iran and North Korea), but it was also part of an argument to show Iraq as the greatest threat, and the one that needed to be dealt with. In the time since the speech, Iraq has been invaded with Saddam Hussein deposed, and North Korea is being dealt with. Iran, however, has gone largely unchecked and has only become more dangerous.
(11/16/04 5:00am)
THIS YEAR, the University's Athletic Department has adopted a new policy for student attendance at basketball games.Under the new system, students can request seats at basketball games and have a spot guaranteed when they arrive. The goal behind this new system is to cut down on long lines and also to encourage students, who previously thought-- incorrectly -- that long lines and fans camping out meant the game was sold out, to attend the games.