TO MANY students and alumni, the single sanction represents what's best about the University of Virginia. With a little reflection and experience, however, one quickly realizes that, at best, the single sanction is fundamentally flawed by striving for an ideal that is unattainable in practice. At worst, it distorts almost beyond recognition much of the Honor Committee's otherwise valuable work.
First, the single sanction guarantees that the University is missing the opportunity to fully meet its most important mission, which is to educate students. Rather than try to elevate a guilty student's sense of integrity through a more measured penalty, we simply bar him or her from the University and its "community of trust." Who would deny that in addition to what is learned in the classroom, college is substantially about learning what it means to be a responsible adult and citizen? And what kind of trust is our community founded on if it doesn't allow students the opportunity to correct their mistakes? Sadly, the single sanction insures that chances to learn and grow from errors or lapses in judgment are lost.
Moreover, the single sanction is perceived as so extreme that witnesses to an honor offense often choose to ignore it. When faculty and student witnesses make a judgment on their own that what they saw should not result in expulsion, it deals a serious blow to the ideals of the honor system. Even when a case is initiated, many violations go unpunished because jurors decide the offense does not warrant expulsion. Since different juries can, and often do, reasonably disagree as to how serious an offense is, the claim that the single sanction assures that similar violations are punished similarly is without merit.
The severity of the single sanction has made the honor system a natural target for litigation over the years. As a result, an incredibly complex process has evolved providing essentially the same due process rights afforded to defendants in a criminal justice proceeding. In spite of the Committee's best efforts, its intricate by-laws cause honor proceedings to be unduly protracted. As a case makes its way to trial, it gradually begins to resemble a legal circus. Instead of concentrating their efforts on the pursuit of the truth, the students involved (including support officers such as honor counsel) end up engaging in a variety of excessively legalistic tactics.
Furthermore, at no point after a case is initiated does any incentive remain for a student to admit his or her guilt. The Committee deals constantly with students who dissemble and scheme -- all in order to avoid expulsion -- since after initiation the student has nothing to lose and everything to gain by lying. In contrast, students who have acted dishonorably on other campuses have incentives to be truthful because their punishment will be measured according to the seriousness of the violation.
Of particular concern is the disparate impact the single sanction has on graduate and professional students relative to undergraduates. Undergraduate students dismissed from the University can continue their education, though they may have to transfer to a less distinguished institution and possibly repeat some credits. For a graduate or professional student, the consequence of an identical mistake may entail finding an entirely new career. A similar concern extends to the issue of "spotlighting" in the honor system. While it is not our purpose here to address spotlighting directly (though it is a problem in desperate need of attention), it is evident that the single sanction greatly exacerbates the seriousness of the disproportionate amount of accusations being brought against members of underrepresented groups, including student athletes.
Finally, the single sanction is a remnant of the University's exclusionary past. If the single sanction was ever effective, it was when the University's students shared the same (or similar) race, gender, culture and values. Though honor and integrity may be shared values, the ways in which different groups of people put these concepts into practice may reasonably differ. Against the backdrop of the past several months, it's clear that traditions which perpetuate the divide between groups of students should be reevaluated.
As we approach the end of our terms as Committee members, we are forced by the weight of our experience to conclude that the interests of the student body and of the timeless values of honor and integrity -- which we hold so dear at the University -- are not served by the Single Sanction. Current representatives -- including ourselves, as well as Chang Chiu (LAW) and Jad Donohoe (GSAS) have serious misgivings with the single sanction. We urge the incoming Committee to continue to critically examine a policy whose time has so clearly passed, action that is necessary to sustain the legitimacy of the honor system.
We assert that the single sanction is such a defining element of the University's honor system that it must remain the subject of a regular public discourse. Students should be sure attend the upcoming forum on this issue and take every opportunity to educate themselves and continue discussion on the single sanction.
(Tara Cook is a fourth year in the Curry School of Education, and the Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee of the Honor Committee. Brian Prescott is a doctoral candidate in the Curry School of Education and a member of the Honor Committee.)
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 | 2 days agoAfter 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
