HOW DID we let our most sacred tradition become so irrelevant so fast? The honor system, where a meager seven students were found guilty in trials all of last year, continues along its death course, lifelessly plodding the winding road of indifference, fading into the sea of oblivion and good ideas forgotten. And nobody seems to care.
Every year it's the same old song and dance: Form a commission with a serious and pompous-sounding name. Promise to do something. Do nothing. Watch the situation worsen. Form another commission with an even more serious and pompous-sounding name. Rinse and repeat.
The honor code is supposed to be the most revered aspect of the University, our proudest seal of excellence and high standards.
Yet students, the only University community members bound by the system, infrequently file charges. They account for only about one-third of initiated cases. This means that over half of the charges are filed by people not even bound by the system's tenets.
|
Faculty confidence in the honor system is dismal as well. A 1999 joint survey conducted by the Faculty Senate and the Honor Committee found that 48 percent of faculty members' opinions on the honor system have worsened in their time at the University. A scant 7 percent now hold the system in a higher regard than when they came here.
Of those faculty members who have initiated an honor case, just 9 percent described their experience as satisfactory. Forty-six percent gave the least favorable rating possible.
It is not surprising, then, that the number of cases initiated in the past few years has declined significantly. In 1998-99, the Committee investigated 69 cases, leading to 30 trials and 19 guilty verdicts. In 1999-2000, the Committee investigated only 61 cases, which led to 19 trials and a paltry seven guilty verdicts.
The proposed solution seems to be increased brainwashing of first-year students and bickering over the most inane aspects of the system. It isn't working.
Last year's Committee wasted time squabbling about seriousness clauses and grievance panels. While these discussions have their place, the addition of another layer of honor bureaucracy will not knock the system off its downward spiral. The system does not need another panel phase, another grievance opportunity or more bylaws. Instead, the fundamentals need to be examined.
The Committee can start by looking at the incentives of the system. Once charges have been filed, the system breeds dishonesty, deceit and lying - all of which serve to make the experience unpleasant and upsetting for all parties involved. Case after case, year after year, more and more faculty members become disillusioned and dissatisfied. This leads to a yearly reduction in the number of cases being filed and, ultimately, to an irrelevant and inconsequential honor system.
These incentives to lie, mislead and act dishonorably must be removed if the system is to have any chance of surviving. In short, a dose of honor must be injected into the honor system.
Once a student has been informed that honor charges are pending, the student has two options, assuming he is guilty of the charge in question. One is to be honorable, admit guilt and apologize for his wrongdoing. This will lead to expulsion.
The student's second option is to try to beat the charges. If the student is guilty, this will require lying, deceit and legal wrangling and maneuvering. If the student can lie well enough and deceive convincingly, he will be found not guilty. If his lies fail to impress a jury of his peers, he will be expelled - just as he would have been had he been honest during the whole procedure.
There must be an incentive in the system, after charges are filed, to tell the truth. Amazingly enough, there isn't. Now, the better liar a student is, the more likely that student is to be found not guilty.
Once a student is brought up on charges, he should have an opportunity to admit to his wrongdoing and to apologize. As a result of the student's honesty, he should not be subject to expulsion and instead should receive a yearlong suspension from the University.
A suspension of this length is serious enough to prevent students from committing honor offenses, but provides an incentive to tell the truth and own up to serious mistakes.
If the student believes he is not guilty of the charges, or wants to roll the dice, he can go through the Investigative Panel and trial phases. Should the student be found guilty at trial, he will be expelled. Should the student be found not guilty, he will be exonerated.
By having an incentive to tell the truth, the amount of lying and dishonesty that plagues the investigative process of the honor system will be lessened, in turn leading to greater satisfaction among faculty members and students. With other changes, this can begin turning the wounded honor battleship back to its rightful place on the University mountaintop.
With fewer charges being filed, this year's Honor Committee has time on its hands. And since it's about time to form a new task force anyway, I challenge the Committee to investigate this proposal. If they like, they can even name the new task force "The Greenwald Commission," so long as that meets all pompous-sounding name regulations.
(Mike Greenwald is a former Cavalier Daily editor-in-chief.)
Read More
CASTAGNO: Closing the Federal Executive Institute fails local residents
By Conall Costagno | YesterdayThe unwilling departure of the FEI from Charlottesville represents the severing of a constructive accord between the government and the University.
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | 2 days agoIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
