AS THE former Chair of the Honor Committee, I have seen the best and worst of the honor system and the community of trust we live in. For a year, I heard the sharpest criticisms and best defenses of many Honor policies. Today, I wish to express some of my thoughts as a person, no longer as the Committee's spokesman.
Honor is visible and thriving at the University but, like any institution, it is not perfect. In the last year, some long-standing challenges to the institution have persisted, and a few new ones have arisen.
Despite that, the good health of honor is evident both in the lower level of cheating and theft and in the tangible benefits that flow from living under an honor code. Trust me, take-home assignments, unproctored exams, and being taken on your word are not the norm at most other universities.
Some people -- in particular, many faculty members -- claim that our community of trust would be even stronger if students not only ran education, investigations and trials, but also took more responsibility to initiate cases. After a year in the trenches, I must say that I agree.
Although ignoring an honor offense is not itself an offense, it is certainly dishonorable. What is the sense of having "self-governance" and an honor system if we look the other way when we witness a blatant violation of that trust we claim to hold so dear? I am no hardliner, but I certainly appreciate many faculty members' complaints that our student-run system is becoming faculty driven. It is time for us to take it back.
Some claim that students ignore offenses because they do not want to "get someone kicked out of school." The single sanction is a popular target to blame. In my opinion, it has become a single scapegoat.
For example, the Judiciary Committee has extreme flexibility in determining sanctions, but has an even lower percentage of student initiations (10 percent of cases brought forth are reported by students, compared to 20-30 percent of honor cases). Indeed, one could suggest that students consistently witness violations of the UJC Standards of Conduct without taking action. Perhaps the severity of the sanction sends a message about how egregious an offense is.
National research conducted by Don McCabe, a professor at Rutgers University who is widely regarded as the preeminent expert on cheating, demonstrates that U.Va. is not so abnormal. Nationally, students choose not to report honor offenses at almost all universities, regardless of the sanctioning system. In fact, the only school with a "high" initiation rate -- and still a mere fraction of those witnessing offenses report them -- is a school with a single sanction system, Washington & Lee.
Regardless, the Honor Committee should institute a confrontation policy and explore anonymous initiations in some circumstances to encourage student participation in the system. A confrontation policy would require students to approach other students when they witness lying, cheating or stealing with the option of initiating a case. My hunch is that this occurs commonly now, but we should openly encourage such behavior. The objective is to nurture an environment where cheating is rejected, resulting in reduced offenses, and, quite possibly, more frequent initiations.
Further, I strongly believe that the chief reason students do not report honor offenses is their discomfort with "ratting out" fellow students. For that reason, the Committee should receive anonymous initiations in some cases. In instances where the evidence clearly speaks for itself -- say, a five-page paper that is verbatim to a Web page -- there really is no need for an "initiator."
Some claim that anonymous initiations compromise the rights of accused students. My experience has shown, however, that many cases have little to be gained by cross-examining initiators; many times, this is more distraction than fact-finding. Accused students could still to present a defense -- all they would need to present is an explanation that is reasonable, consistent with the facts and not an honor offense itself (this is the definition of "reasonable doubt" for the Committee).
The honor system, despite the claims of critics, is generally healthy. The students, however, must take back some responsibility for holding their peers accountable for their behavior. Students do not ignore offenses because of the single sanction -- they do so because of a more general aversion to initiating a case. By requiring students to personally confront honor offenders, the student body would send a strong message that the behavior is intolerable -- this culture would breed accountability. Finally, in many cases where the evidence speaks for itself, anonymous initiations would bridge the gap between the principal student responsibility and action. Such action would serve to strengthen a community of trust that should reflect our ideal of governance: that by students.
Carey J. Mignerey is former Honor Committee chair and a fourth year in the College.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 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 | 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.
