I WOULD like to clarify some of the discussion regarding the informed retraction proposal currently being debated by the Honor Committee. First, everyone must understand that under the proposal students found guilty at trial will continue to be permanently dismissed from the University. The informed retraction option only would be available before an Investigative Panel. To make an informed retraction, a student must admit to his or her honor offense, agree to make reparations to those affected, accept a leave of absence from the University for two semesters, accept the notation "Enrollment Contingent Upon Honor Rehabilitation" on his or her transcript, and take an academic course related to honor and ethics. Students would be permitted to make an informed retraction only once.
More importantly, I would like to elaborate on the reasoning behind the proposal. I believe my most significant message has been lost in debates about its details. As a student and a Committee representative, I have seen several serious problems with our honor system that deserve attention. The first of these problems is that under the current procedures there is little incentive for students to be truthful once a case has been initiated against them. The only options are to admit guilt and leave the University permanently, or to claim innocence and hope the case is dropped or the trial verdict is not guilty. There is little motivation to act honorably, and the procedures of the system actually induce further dishonorable behavior. This is not consistent with the spirit of the community of trust, and the proposal addresses this problem by providing students with an opportunity to act honorably by admitting to their offenses without being permanently dismissed from the University.
The most significant problem facing our honor system is the lack of participation on the part of both students and faculty. In a recent survey, 27.8 percent of students claimed to have witnessed an honor violation, yet less than 1 percent of those students initiated an honor case. About 6 percent of students surveyed actually admitted to having committed honor violations themselves. Furthermore, only 60 percent of surveyed faculty claimed they would be likely to initiate an honor case in an instance of clear academic dishonesty, and only 20 percent would be likely to initiate a case if they only suspected academic dishonesty.
Clearly, a substantial portion of professors and students do not support the tenets of the Honor System. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the single sanction as an ideal and a standard, but it seems that few in the community are willing to enforce it. The University may pride itself on its tradition of honor, but this ideal is far from reality. The vitality of the single sanction has withered over time and with it so has the strength of the honor system. We must consider the possibility that we are clinging to a somewhat lifeless ideal simply for the sake of tradition, and we should ask ourselves if this represents a true community of trust.
The informed retraction proposal is intended to strengthen the honor system by increasing faculty and student participation. Both professors and students will be far more likely to initiate cases knowing that students will have an opportunity to act honorably and admit to their offenses without being permanently excluded from the University. With greater support from faculty and students, the honor system ultimately will grow stronger, and our ideals of honor will be more than eloquent rhetoric.
I would like to respond to those who believe that as a community we should not tolerate those who commit honor offenses by stating that there are already many students who commit honor violations and remain at the University. The Committee allows students to make conscientious retractions, in which students admit to their honor offenses, agree to make reparations for their actions, and are permitted to remain in the community.
More significantly, due to the lack of support for the current system, many honor offenses go unreported. Every year there are students who walk down the Lawn and receive a University degree despite the fact that they have committed an honor offense. As a community, we are deceiving ourselves if we continue to believe that the honor system is strong and effective.
If faculty and students remain unwilling to participate, the system itself must change in order to reflect current community beliefs. The informed retraction proposal is an attempt to address just one aspect of a much broader problem and is not intended to be an absolute solution, but it is not the central issue at stake. It is far more critical that as a community we acknowledge that the honor system has serious flaws and put forth our best efforts to address them in order to strengthen the system and ensure its future vitality.
(Brian Winterhalter is a fourth-year Architecture student. He is an Honor Committee representative.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
