TODAY could turn out to be a very important day in the long and rich history of the University of Virginia. Today, the student body has the opportunity to vote on a pivotal amendment to our honor code. The measure would allow students to confess to an honor offense after they have been reported and suffer a three-semester suspension from the University rather than the current punishment of expulsion. Due to the importance of this amendment and the solid logic behind it, it is our duty as students to vote, and to vote in favor of its implementation.
There are many arguments against this proposed amendment. The first and probably most well known of these claims is that this new amendment would undermine the single sanction. This view is based on the fact that, rather than expelling guilty students as has been done in past years, informed retraction allows admittedly guilty individuals back into the community of trust after a year and a half. While this point is of itself accurate, that alone should not defeat the idea of informed retraction.
|
We need to examine the implications of the single sanction itself when applied to the present situation. Under the current honor code, should a student be accused of an honor offense, he is given the choice of either confessing - and thus leaving the University - or going to trial. If the student is guilty of an honor offense, he has little incentive to confess to the violation while standing a chance of being acquitted at trial. If the guilty party decides to confess, all that will be gained is the "dignity" of leaving without a blemish on his record. However, should the student go to trial, it's possible that he may be able to get off under reasonable doubt, thus enabling him to stay at the University.
This is what truly undermines the community of trust. Individuals willing - not only to commit an honor offense, but then to adamantly lie about it once caught - have violated the honor system in the deepest and most profound sense, yet they are allowed to stay at the University, completely exonerated from blame.
Conversely, students who take the more honorable route and confess to their offense once accused are forced to leave the community of trust forever. In this way, as much as we may not want to believe it, the current system encourages dishonesty. This is a serious problem, and one that the implementation of the informed retraction amendment will help rectify.
Another objection to the idea of informed retraction is the notion that once students fail to make a conscientious retraction, they should already be deemed dishonorable and thus should be forced to leave the community of trust. Some argue that informed retraction does not promote true honesty but rather forced honesty, chosen by the guilty party because it brings the lesser of two punishments. Honesty, in this scenario, amounts to little more than opportunism.
While this technically is true, realize that these individuals are not going without punishment. By confessing to an honor offense after being informed that they have been reported, guilty students are forced to leave the University for three semesters, in addition to the remainder of their current semester. He will be forced to suffer the pain and embarrassment of explaining to his friends why he is graduating a full two years behind them, and will have to essentially start over socially upon his return.
While to fierce defenders of the single sanction this amounts to little, it is a very serious penalty for their actions. There can be little doubt that these nearly two years away from school would give the student an ample amount of time to think about and repent for his dishonesty. In fact, due to the fact that they have directly experienced the power that the honor system commands, students will more than likely return to the University more honest and with more respect for its code than many of those who have never been brought up on such charges. If for no other reason than out of fear of their own history repeating, these students will no doubt strongly avoid anything that could be construed as an honor offense.
To say that they will, upon their return, again be a threat to the community of trust is impractical at best. Once we arrive at this conclusion, to expel students rather than allowing them a second chance after they endure a severe punishment for their actions can be called nothing if not vindictive.
Few would argue that the intention of the framers of the honor code was to seek revenge on those who violated its principles. Rather, by setting forth the guidelines that the framers did, they hoped to secure a community of trust. If, through our direct observation of the honor code as applied for all practical purposes, we perceive an error, we need not be afraid to set it right. Many worry about undermining the tradition of the University and of the code itself, but we have reached the point where it would be disrespectful to that very tradition to allow a flaw to remain in the code.
If we are to assume that the intentions of the framers of the honor code were in fact good-willed, and that they sought - not vengeance - but merely to secure a community of trust, then we can also assume that they would be in support of this amendment, for it in no way undermines such an ideal. It is time for a change, and the responsibility now rests with students to make it by enacting the proposal. And so, when you go home today, tomorrow or Wednesday, get online and cast your vote in favor of amending the single sanction. To do otherwise would be shortsighted and negligent.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe 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.
