THE RECENT cheating scandal at the University showed the failings of the Honor Committee over the last few years. Apparently as many as 122 students did not feel enough of a sense of pride not to cheat, and the University's honor code is in a precarious position as a result.
The dire straights of the University's honor system are due in no small part to the inadequate job of the Committee. Committee Chairman Thomas Hall had this to say: "The Honor Committee is not the Honor Police. It is ludicrous to think that the 23-member Honor Committee could be responsible for the monitoring of the hundreds of classes offered at the University each semester." Although this certainly is true, the Committee must bear some responsibility for the monitoring of cheating at the University, especially when this current scandal involves over 100 students.
Over the last few years, the Committee has come under attack for its alleged prejudice against minorities and athletes. These charges are only the tip of the iceberg of problems, which reflect not only the Committee but also the University as a whole. The honor code has become more of a peculiar annoyance at the University, like the foreign language requirement, rather than a code of ethics.
Every year a few students are expelled for cheating violations, and this leaves the University feeling that the honor code is being held up. But the mystery and secrecy surrounding honor trials leaves many students in the dark as to whether or not the trials are conducted fairly.This has left many in the University community feeling that the Committee looks to punish and expel students to keep its numbers up, rather than actually doing its job. This claim is given new credence with the 122 honor cases initiated by physics Prof. Lou Bloomfield.
The Committee brings to trial a small number of students every year, yet the Committee fails to notice a cheating ring, which apparently encompassed over 100 students. However, the problem obviously reflects the students, not the Committee.
Last month, as the cheating scandal was flashed across the country's leading newspapers, University students were left with an awful feeling in the pits of their stomachs. After so much talk about the honor code and its values, a cheating scandal of this magnitude could occur at the University. Although cheating scandals occur at every school, few non-military schools place as much emphasis on the honor code as the University does. People were therefore all too eager to tear the University down from its pedestal of self-righteousness.
To put it bluntly, the honor code and the constant education about it did not work. They neither instilled a sense of honor among certain students, nor even scared them enough not to cheat. University students knew that cheating occurred in certain classes, but were left with few choices in a system with expulsion as the only punishment for cheating.
The cheating scandal will no doubt cause proponents of the honor system to imply that the solution is to strengthen the system, while its opponents will talk about how the end has come for this cherished institution.
Neither side is correct. Strengthening a flawed honor system will simply result in an even bigger failure in the future. Weakening the honor code will only serve to vindicate those students who have so shallowly ignored the ideals of the University.
The first thing that must be done is for the Committee to begin to take a more proactive role in detecting and catching large cheating rings.
The Committee should approach each trial with trepidation. It should instruct student juries to assume they are wrong about the accused and should only expel a student if it feels that it has proved to everyone, including itself, the student did in fact cheat at a level which would warrant expulsion. Expulsion is not warranted for someone who looks at the back of his book for calculus answers or does not actually listen to the two-hour tape for his language lab. The Committee also should not look only to try individual students, but it should be aware of larger patterns of cheating.
The students at the University must be willing to turn cheaters in, as apparently one brave girl did in Bloomfield's "How Things Work." Those students who cheat are ruining both the community of trust at the University and the University's reputation. A final solution is to acknowledge that there are cases of non-serious cheating and educate students about them. This will lead to students coming out sooner about cheating, and eventually lead to a significant reduction of it at the University.
The Committee can strengthen itself by bringing to trial all 122 students in a timely and fair manner. By treating these students justly, the Committee can change the system so that the next time cheating is suspected, students will feel guilt-free about turning the students into the Committee, because they know that, if not guilty, these students will face no consequences. Other schools and students may not understand the honor code at the University and why we worry about it so much, but it is by being different that makes us proud to be associated with such a fine institution.
(Harris Freier is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 17 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
