I also have much to learn about the honor process. I think a big issue is where to draw the line between something “trivial” and a serious honor offense. The term itself is pretty ambiguous, and the question is even greater considering that juries are comprised of randomly chosen students. Cheating on a test would be considered an offense worthy of expulsion under most circumstances. What about a quiz? Is asking a classmate about an independent assignment classified as cheating? How is this different from attending office hours? In other words, is there a measure of consistency to compensate for the differing student opinions that will inevitably come with the current jury selection procedure? (For all I know, there could be an explanation of all of this somewhere, which brings up another question: where is the best place for uneducated students like myself to find information about honor policies and debates?)
Ross brings up a good point in his discussion of the single sanction. I think the single sanction is a great disincentive for students to commit major honor offenses; in fact, the system may not be as reliable without it. However, is there a significant punishment – other than the embarrassment associated with being brought up on an honor charge – for trivial crimes? If not, students have no real reason to avoid committing minor offenses. Most students will not break the honor code, even in trivial ways, out of the goodness of their hearts; they care about the University and its traditions. But people at the University are still people, and people act in their own self-interest. One thing is for sure: if students become accustomed to “trivially” violating the honor code, it will degrade into a merely superficial aspect of the University. Clearly, this is not the case now, and I am proud to attend a school where professors have no qualms about giving take-home exams. But I would like to know what safeguards are built into the honor system to ensure its longevity.
A little something about honor
As just another second-year student at the University, I feel bit in over my head commenting about the honor system. After all, the topic's been bantered about for generations. But for the sake of keeping tradition, I'll give it a shot.
Since this week is more about questions than answers, here a few to mull over. Are undergraduate students really qualified to judge their peers on issues of integrity? Does the (legally necessary) closed trial process create too little accountability? How does the Honor Committee handle conflict-of-interest when it arises? How should an appeals process be structured? Is there any allowance for outside input (legal, especially), or is the entire process to be genuinely student-run and supported?
This list goes on. The most central debate is of course over the nature of a single sanction. While I think there is a good deal of intrinsic value in this idea, it is my belief some sort of mechanism should be in place to handle the nature of triviality more clearly. In other words, while the idea of a single sanction should exist for clear, severe cases of misconduct, lesser offenses should be treated in a somewhat different manner. It is my belief that this won't undermine the community of trust ideal towards which we aspire. Most cases should be treated as they are currently; blatant plagiarism on a term paper, stealing from another student, or a clear instance of cheating on an exam should be punishable by dismissal from the University. So the merit of the single sanction remains intact. The only clarification would be that those cases deemed too “trivial” to result in immediate dismissal would be deferred to a separate sanctioning process. This would ensure that all crimes receive due process, and that students would feel less inclined to let smaller injustices occur out of fear for the extreme level of repercussions.
As for the smaller questions of honor, clearly people better qualified than myself will have to weigh in. One major challenge for understanding how to amend honor is that many students, myself included, know too little of the current process itself. The burden is always on us to educate ourselves, but certainly it would be in honor's best interests to try to elucidate students as to the true nature of honor at the University.
Since this week is more about questions than answers, here a few to mull over. Are undergraduate students really qualified to judge their peers on issues of integrity? Does the (legally necessary) closed trial process create too little accountability? How does the Honor Committee handle conflict-of-interest when it arises? How should an appeals process be structured? Is there any allowance for outside input (legal, especially), or is the entire process to be genuinely student-run and supported?
This list goes on. The most central debate is of course over the nature of a single sanction. While I think there is a good deal of intrinsic value in this idea, it is my belief some sort of mechanism should be in place to handle the nature of triviality more clearly. In other words, while the idea of a single sanction should exist for clear, severe cases of misconduct, lesser offenses should be treated in a somewhat different manner. It is my belief that this won't undermine the community of trust ideal towards which we aspire. Most cases should be treated as they are currently; blatant plagiarism on a term paper, stealing from another student, or a clear instance of cheating on an exam should be punishable by dismissal from the University. So the merit of the single sanction remains intact. The only clarification would be that those cases deemed too “trivial” to result in immediate dismissal would be deferred to a separate sanctioning process. This would ensure that all crimes receive due process, and that students would feel less inclined to let smaller injustices occur out of fear for the extreme level of repercussions.
As for the smaller questions of honor, clearly people better qualified than myself will have to weigh in. One major challenge for understanding how to amend honor is that many students, myself included, know too little of the current process itself. The burden is always on us to educate ourselves, but certainly it would be in honor's best interests to try to elucidate students as to the true nature of honor at the University.
Guest Post: David Truetzel, Honor Committee Chair-elect, on what you should know about honor
Seeing as it is Honor Awareness Week, Executive Editor Annette Robertson has asked me to write a blog post about a couple of things I think students should know about honor. I am more than happy to oblige. I’d like to focus on two aspects of the honor system specifically: the role of the Committee and the single sanction.
If it’s been a while since you’ve heard about Honor the organization, here’s a brief refresher about its structure. The Honor Committee is made up of elected representatives from each school. There are 27 representatives in total – 2 from each school (now including the Batten School) and 5 from the College. This body is responsible for the administration of the system and enacting legislation. By administration, I mean things like keeping paperwork straight and serving as Investigative Panelists and Trial Chairs. Since educating, investigating reports and going to trial require a lot of work, the Committee recruits a group of about 150 Support Officers (Counsel, Advisors, or Educators) from the student body to help it out.
With the structure in mind, I’ll now address one common misperception. Many students believe that Committee members decide the outcome of trials. However, this is true only when an accused student chooses to have a jury with Committee members on it. The majority of accused students select a jury panel made up entirely of randomly selected students who are not involved in Honor. So, for the majority of trials, the decision of guilty or not guilty is in the hands of students just like you. Students must understand this aspect of the system because it is an important area where students not involved in Honor can have a big impact. It also speaks to the fairness that we in Honor seek to provide every student. So the next time you get a jury summons, make sure you respond to it and play your role in the aystem!
I’d also like to write about an alternative interpretation of the single sanction. If you can, think back to when you applied to the University. On the application, each student signed his or her name saying that they had read and acknowledged the honor code. Think of this process as entering into a contract. The terms of this contract essentially state that a student’s admission and continued enrollment in the University of Virginia are contingent on his or her behaving honorably – that is, not lying, cheating, or stealing. If you think about the honor system in this way, the single sanction is not so much a punishment as it is the natural outcome of the contract when its terms are violated. This isn’t to say that students must agree with the single sanction to come here or that the single sanction is the best possible option. It is to say, however, that like any contract students should be aware of the terms they have signed onto.
I hope that this post has been edifying and thought provoking. If you have more questions please visit our website at www.virginia.edu/honor or feel free to contact me or anyone else you might know in honor. Finally, please consider attending the Honor Diversity Forum tonight (Wednesday) in Minor 125 at 7:00 PM to talk about Honor and diversity issues and the Honor Benefits Benefit tomorrow from 5:00-8:00 PM in Garden IX.
-David Truetzel, Chair-elect
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)