IN RETROSPECT, is there anything funnier than your University orientation session? I dare any student on Grounds to keep a straight face when comparing the information he received prior to the start of classes with the reality of the experience of attending the University. Most orientation advice eventually turns out to be hilariously false. The suggestions to stop by a professor's office hours to "introduce yourself" now seem about as ridiculous as the myth of a reliable bus system. Even worse were the assertions that Clemons is a place where people go to study. But the biggest gut-buster, the joke that is sure to send all upperclassmen into hysterics upon its remembrance, is the one about the "community of trust."
According to U-Guides and Honor Committee members, everyone at the University enjoys the benefits of this supposed community of trust, thanks to the hallowed honor system. Theoretically, because all students are bound to uphold the honor system, they are entitled to certain perks. In this ideal situation, because all members of the community would responsibly uphold the tenets of honor by their own volition, greater student freedom could be allowed. Needless to say, such a system of trust isn't often recognized. In its present state, the honor system simply facilitates a "community of rules," wherein those who get caught get punished, end of story.
In assigning blame for the failure of the community of trust, it is easiest to point the finger at the faculty. After all, aren't professors supposed to be the ones who trust students to behave honorably? More often than not, however, it seems that when professors say "I believe in the honor system," their policies actually come to resemble a sense of, "I'm watching you." Despite what prospective students are led to believe initially, how many have actually been allowed to take non-proctored exams outside of the classroom? Some instructors even utilize computer programs to analyze students' homework to ensure that it wasn't plagiarized. The mandatory honor pledge, in light of disciplinary provisions such as these, bears nothing but symbolic weight in these classes.
Even so, professors cannot be blamed for this phenomenon. As it stands, professors do not have a reason to blindly trust the student body to keep a watchful eye on itself. The benefits associated with the community of trust are meant to arise naturally once students as a whole have proven their ability to enforce provisions against lying, cheating and stealing. Unfortunately, the student population has proven just the opposite.
Students of the University are too unwilling to turn each other in for honor offenses. According to the Honor Committee's survey last year, only a third of the student body would initiate an honor case if they witnessed a clear violation. Several incentives contribute to the formation of this attitude. Most prominent is the social stigma students fear will be placed upon them if they assume the role of snitch, especially if the perpetrator was a close friend. Also, the heavy consequence of an honor conviction, expulsion, turns people off who don't desire for anyone to suffer so great a punishment for their crime.
This reluctance prevails even in the face of several logical reasons to defend the honor code. Academically, the presence of cheating unfairly tips the grading scale against those who are honest, and a University with an effective honor system produces degrees with an extra bit of legitimacy added to them. Furthermore, students aren't ultimately responsible for the expulsion of those against whom they initiate cases. That judgment lies in the hands of Honor investigators and juries, who have the final say in whether an offense is serious enough to warrant punishment.
Still, logical considerations such as these hardly factor into the decision to turn someone in. Devotion to the honor system can only come about as a result of an inner moral sense within students themselves. Though the Honor Committee does an excellent job educating the student body about its procedures, no amount of dorm visits or "On My Honor" videos can instill that morality in an individual student. All people must develop those characteristics on their own.
Despite rhetoric about a community of trust, the Honor Committee will forever remain a simple disciplinary body. If students wish to reap the potential benefits of an honor system, they must look away from the actions of their professors or the Honor Committee and focus instead on the makeup of their own convictions. Only when students become responsible for reporting violations will orientation rumors of a unique concept of honor at the University become true.
(Chris Kiser's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ckiser@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 16 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead 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 | 4 days agoInvesting 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.
