Honoring the future

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.

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

Topic of the Week: Honor awareness

The open honor trial held Sunday was tried by a random student jury. Photo by Bennett Sorbo.
This week is Honor Awareness Week. What that means, I'm not sure. So we're going to do something a little different this week. Obviously all University students are aware that we have a student-run honor system, which asked one student to leave this weekend after he was found guilty of lying. Fortunately for The Cavalier Daily, that was also the only open honor trial this weekend, and you can get the full scoop here. A student can request to have an open or closed honor trial, and in three closed honor trials this weekend, four students (two involved in the same case) were found not guilty. But the University community knows next to nothing about these closed honor trials. An open trial earlier in the semester that found the accused not guilty led students to question the honor trial process. Maybe it's in the best interest of everyone to have an open honor trial, although that's unlikely to happen because of FERPA. But why is it four non-guilty students chose to have closed honor trials? If they were truly innocent, it would seem they feared some failure in the honor system that might find them guilty. Or maybe it was just an embarrassing situation to be involved in, and those students didn't want to be tainted by association with an honor charge.
Since it's Honor Awareness Week, what should we know about the honor system that we don't already? What does the University community need to be made aware of? I would say we need to be aware of how the honor system works more than anything else. I hope no University students need to be made aware of what constitutes lying, cheating or stealing. So this week will be more about posing questions than taking a position. What do you want to know about the honor system? I'll do my best to find the answer to questions throughout the week.

Realizing the promise of our unity at last

Monday night, outgoing Student Council President Matt Schrimper chose to honor and reestablish one of this University’s finest traditions: the recognition of a University dog. Any student who takes the time to venture up to the University Cemetery next to Old Dorms can see the headstones remembering canine “mascots” of yesteryear: Beta and Seal. During a time when the University’s most sacred institutions are being attacked and torn down for “elitism” (see formal football attire, student self-governance, and the entire Greek system), it warms the heart to see this one piece of history get the respect it so sincerely deserves.
Sure, the nay-sayers can condemn Student Council for wasting its time on “frivolous” legislation. They can argue that formally instating a University Dog is “pointless” or “a waste of time”. But they know not the true spirit of camaraderie that exists here. The aptly named Noble Lampkin will serve as a symbol of the character and fortitude of our students: their honor, trust, wisdom, and cordiality. Why not pay homage to this spiritus vitae and name Noble our official canine creature?
A lot of time is spent arguing here at the University. Student Council debates its many proposals. The Cavalier Daily provides a forum for disputing various policies. UJC and Honor Committee sport contested trials on a regular basis. Finally our community of trust will be privileged with the presence of a member who offers companionship over criticism, love over hostilit, and joy over suffering. Noble Lampkin exemplifies what we should all endeavor to be. He is the model Lawn resident. He represents all that can be right about the future of this University. I, for one, will let no detractor take that hope and unbridled optimism away from us! Every University deserves a dog.

Topic of the Week: A University dog

Bill to Recognize Official University Dog

Sponsored by President Matt Schrimper

Whereas, the University has a proud history of recognizing and revering official University dogs,

Whereas, the University Dog serves as a dog-away-from home to countless students,

Whereas, Noble Cozart Lampkin has served as a convivial canine in his time in Pavilions III and V,

Whereas, Noble is full breed Collie that has been with the University since a mere eight weeks of age,

Whereas, Noble is often seen traipsing about the Academicals Village with students and respected administrators chasing after,

Whereas, “noble” is a synonym for “honorable,”

Whereas, Noble’s heartwarming and

Be it therefore enacted that Noble be formally recognized as the official University Dog.

Last night at the transition ceremony in the Rotunda, out-going Student Council President Matt Schrimper introduced legislation to establish a University dog. The dog in question was Noble, the dog of Pat Lampkin, Vice President and Chief Student Affairs Officer. This legislation was passed and Noble has been declared the official dog of the University by Council. Was this a waste of time? Council had to prepare the language and go through all the legislative produces to establish the University dog. How many students have really had contact with Noble and how does this benefit even those who have? Is this really what we want Council doing with their time, even if it was the last official act of Schrimper's administration?
Alternatively, a University dog can be a unifying figure and provide some light-hearted relief in these times of economic stress. Noble is still Lampkin's dog; this doesn't cost the University any money and could provide a lot of fun for students. Even if the establishment of a University dog doesn't affect all that many people, if certainly couldn't hurt anyone. Maybe there should be a place for lighthearted legislation in Council's agenda.

Missing the point

A lot of negative attention – including a student petition 336 signatures strong calling for “a better, more transparent and more accountable commencement speaker selection committee to better reflect and respect the diverse opinions of the student body,” according to the article in today’s Cavalier Daily – has been focused on the political views of this year’s graduation commencement speaker: University alumnus and Charlottesville resident Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. Many students look forward to fond memories of their graduation ceremony’s main event, but “selection” may not be the best word to describe the process of determining who the annual commencement speaker will be. Unfortunately, the speaker selection committee does not enjoy the same luxuries that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions does this time of year; a barrage of qualified, well-known candidates is not clamoring for the chance to serve the University community for no charge. Not that it isn’t a great honor to speak at the University’s graduation, but the elite speakers have other great options too. Finding a prestigious, worthy commencement speaker is no easy task for a college administration, and considering that the University does not pay its speakers it is hard to expect that they could have done much better in this respect. Whatever his political ideology may be, Wilkinson is an accomplished scholar that has a lot of noteworthy advice to offer graduating fourth-years. There are no guarantees, but one can easily be forgiven for assuming that Wilkinson’s speech will be tailored toward graduating college students rather than an account of his views on the war in Iraq. It is impossible to satisfy the “diverse opinions” of the three thousand plus members of the graduating class with merely one person. Can’t we set politics aside just once?