LAST NIGHT, the University community chose a very qualified group of students -- David Hobbs, Meghan Sullivan and Sara Page -- to serve on the Honor Committee, and while other elected candidates may get more face time and name recognition, no body of representatives has a more difficult duty to discharge over the next year. Incoming representatives will immediately be faced with the daunting task of running a system that determines the fate of numerous students each semester and underpins the University at large. Even more overwhelming, they must begin to reform a sacrosanct tradition or watch it become nothing more than outdated rubble.
The honor system sits in a precarious position today, and for too long nothing has been done to change it. This is not due to failure by Honor Committees of the past, but simply to a lack of ready options.
The honor system relies on voluntary participation by all members of the "community of trust," but today, this is nothing more than fantasy. Many professors do not trust the system, do not approve of its rules and regulations and flat out refuse to take part in its proceedings.
To boot, it is well known that students do not frequently report honor violations. Whether this stems from disapproval of severe punishments or from general ambivalence is unimportant. The fact of the matter is the system cannot function if both professors and students do not take active roles.
For years the Honor Committee has attempted to rectify existing problems. Committee members used to joke that a proposal to change the single sanction appeared on the student ballot every four years like clockwork. In just the past few terms, the Committee has toyed with altering the seriousness clause by adding "informed retraction" and has considered many other reforms to make the system more palatable to students and faculty.
But if students do not support the existing system, they certainly do not support change either. Proposals to alter the single sanction penalty are routinely crushed by majority votes. Students seem to like many parts of the honor system as is -- or at least they claim to. This makes the Committee's job even harder. How do you deal with a system which is upheld by majority vote but not popularly supported in its application? This is the question newly elected Committee members face.
One error the Committee should strive to steer clear of is focusing attention on itself and its policies. Reform will not start with those few students who already know and appreciate the system. Instead, a concerted effort must be made to reach out to the University community in new and creative ways.
The biggest problem with Honor is the veil of mystery that hangs over it. For the most part, members of the University community have no idea what goes on behind the closed doors of the fourth floor of Newcomb Hall. Honor has the air of a secret society, something no one knows about until they're involved -- and you don't want to be involved.
The truth is far less ominous. Anyone who has had the privilege of getting to know the system will attest to the professionalism and fairness its operations exude. A great majority of students selected as jurors report their impression of Honor skyrocketed after witnessing a trial. Both the system and those who volunteer to fill its ranks are impressive to say the least.
But not everyone stumbles into experiencing Honor, and unfortunately, the Committee has not yet found a way to enfranchise the general public. This is not only detrimental to Honor's cosmetic image, but will prove fatal to the integrity of the system if nothing is done.
Reform cannot consist of increased education along established lines. The Committee should strive to work hand-in-hand with sympathetic members of the Faculty Senate to instigate serious dialogue on what kind of change professors demand.
Further, the Committee should do all it can to cast off the pall of secrecy. A good start would include making more records available to the public. While privacy is important, measures can be taken to improve accessibility without impinging on student rights. If understanding is increased, students will be more likely to participate, or if they don't like what they see, change their voting behavior.
Unless Honor finds a way to preserve the tradition so important to the student body and at the same time appease a disenchanted faculty and interest apathetic students, it will crumble. Good luck to the newly elected Committee, in hopes that Honor will not become little more than a pretentious slogan on recruiting pamphlets and meaningless inscriptions on the wall.
Nick Chapin is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer. In 2002, he covered the Honor Committee for The Cavalier Daily News department.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days 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 | 4 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.
