I HADN'T planned to write about the honor referenda this week. Having mentioned the Committee repeatedly throughout the last two weeks, I figured it was time to give it a rest. When I'm fired up, however, I like to fire back.
Over the past week and a half, we've seen reasons for and against voting for the honor referenda up for approval this week.
My initial reaction to the referenda was the same as many opponents. I took one look at the proposed changes and nearly threw a fit of libertarian-principled anger.
But then I took a second and a third look. Once I managed to separate my ideals about honor from my CourtTV perception of justice, I realized the Committee was right on all counts.
I have yet to see a compelling argument against the proposals. In fact, most of those people arguing against the proposals obviously don't know enough about the honor system, meaning they have yet to make an informed decision.
|
They mention the "power-hungry Honor Committee," which personally cracks me up. The authors must be watching some other Committee, because the one I know and interact with has no intention of amassing power. In fact, most of the Committee that proposed the referenda won't be in office when they take effect.
Yet, these opponents continue on, mentioning indiscretions from Committees long past - an act that's the intellectual equivalent of blaming Jimmy Carter's failures on our current president. Any government major worth their salt would know that such an inane argument borders on stupidity.
Opponents mention eliminating the single sanction as a possible referendum item, ignoring the fact that the single sanction has been the subject of referenda repeatedly over the last 10 years. Each time, students have reaffirmed their commitment to the idea that anyone who lies, cheats or steals has no place at the University.
Most of their rhetoric seems centered around the idea that the Committee must be held in check because of the awesome power it wields. They describe the Committee as if it was some static, unmoving group of aliens from another planet, bent on enslaving us all.
I have taken classes with members of the Committee and talked on the phone with them. Two members of the current Committee share my major. I can assure you, they are all students, just like the rest of us.
In fact, opponents of the proposed changes make the best case for the changes. When arguing against the referenda, they take off on long diatribes, using judicial theories straight out of a 700-level government class.
The honor system should not be akin to a criminal justice system.
A criminal court is reserved for a society where people are forced to accept the rules. From the moment you are born, you must follow the laws of your city, state and country, or risk punishment.
Every person at this University chose to come here. Unlike society, students here knew the rules before they agreed to follow them. The complexities of criminal court do not apply here. We all promised we would not lie, cheat or steal, signing our name to that promise. We all know when we are breaking that promise. Anyone who has principle or academic integrity cannot rationally defend someone who has broken this promise.
This is why we have a single sanction. The honor system is much more like a club than a court. When you join a club, you agree to follow its rules. When you break a rule, you leave the club.
Multiple sanctions are necessary in communities where citizens can be rehabilitated and where society has a duty to rehabilitate them. The University does not need to rehabilitate cheating students. It's a pathetic premise that demeans everyone who has ever worked hard to get a degree from Mr. Jefferson's University.
While many people may see being dismissed from the University for an honor offense as a fate worse than death, it isn't. A student's transcript merely says "enrollment discontinued," and any inquiring admissions officer from another school will get no information about the circumstances.
So why are people - not necessarily students - still attacking the proposals?
Because they don't understand the system. They don't see that, for the system to succeed in future generations, it must be fixed now. They don't realize that in order to combat student apathy, the system must be something the students can believe in. Unbelievably, they don't comprehend the need to protect the integrity of their achievements here in Charlottesville.
These opponents amount to nothing but conspiracy theorists, prattling on with large vocabularies and little knowledge. Any person who knows the system will tell you that things must change, and that the current proposals are the best option for that change. They will tell you to look at the proposals for yourself and understand them. Most importantly, they will tell you to vote, because - contrary to the conspiracy theorists' opinions - the decision is in the hands of the students.
(Brian Haluska's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bhaluska @cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
