One of the oldest principles of moral psychology is that habit builds character. If you can get people to do honorable things, they will become honorable people. Jefferson himself wrote that the moral sense "may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body." So the community of trust that University students have created for themselves is a wise and wonderful thing. I have no doubt that students leave Charlottesville as better, nobler people because of it.
But the honor system in its present form violates two other principles of moral psychology, thereby undermining its effectiveness. The first is that the certainty of punishment is a much more powerful deterrent than is the severity of punishment. At the University, however, we get it backward: Cheating is almost always tolerated, and on rare occasions it is punished severely. Nobody knows exactly how much cheating there is, but I think it's safe to assume that for every case that is discovered by a faculty member there must be many more known about by other students, and students almost never initiate cheating cases. They tolerate.
Faculty also rarely initiate cases, for two reasons. The first is that because of the single sanction the bar of proof is set extraordinarily high. Only indisputable documentary evidence will do; our own eyewitness testimony is not enough. So we are forced to tolerate most cases of cheating that we catch (although at least we can give an F on the assignment). The second reason is that even when we have absolute proof, the cheater is usually let off. According to statistics from the honor committee, there were 285 cases initiated in the five years from 1999-2003 (excluding Bloomfield cases). Because we faculty rarely initiate cases without excellent evidence, I think it's likely that in nearly all of these cases the student was guilty. Yet only 24 percent of these cases ended with either a guilty verdict or an admission of guilt. The rest slipped out of the system at various steps, often by lying and using a variety of sleazy tactics, including slandering the professors and teaching assistants who, at great cost to themselves, tried to support the honor system.
The second basic principle of moral psychology is the principle of justice which says "treat like cases alike and different cases differently." Concerns about fairness and justice are a deep part of human nature, and people get queasy when they see crime go unpunished, or when they see minor infractions punished severely. But the single sanction requires us all to violate the principle of justice. The single sanction is a deliberate policy of treating all cases alike, and most cases more harshly than we think is right. I believe this is a major reason why faculty, as well as students, are reluctant to turn in cheaters.
As a social psychologist, it seems clear to me that the single sanction is an obstacle to honor at the University. It contributes to widespread toleration of dishonor, and to dishonorable behavior at trial. Yet in my talks with those who defend the single sanction, I have come also to see how much it inspires many students, both as a high ideal and as a cherished tradition. So is there some way to keep the single sanction yet get it in harmony with basic principles of moral psychology?
Yes. Four years ago a Darden student named Lamont Soverall came to talk to me about his idea for adding a "forgiveness" clause to the single sanction. I thought this was brilliant and the perfect compromise. It retains the single sanction (because there is still just one sanction for dishonor), yet it humanizes the system, allowing expelled students to apply (once) for forgiveness and re-admission.
This single change would have a ripple effect throughout the system: more students would stand up after being caught and admit that they cheated, reducing the percentage of cases that go to trial, and reducing the desperate lies told at trial. More faculty would therefore be willing to initiate cases. The whole process would feel more humane and just, which would encourage more students and faculty to initiate cases rather than simply tolerate cheating. And best of all, forgiveness is an inspiring change, one that feels like moral progress rather than like an admission of failure. In fact, forgiveness satisfies the very logic that is already built into the honor system in the seriousness clause, which asks: If a behavior was to become widespread, would it undermine the community of trust? If so, then it is serious. Well, what about forgiveness? If forgiveness were to become widespread at the University, would it undermine our community of trust? No. It would strengthen it. It would be exactly the sort of moral "exercise" that Jefferson wanted us to have.
Jon Haidt is a psychology professor. He is also a member of the Single Sanction Reform Committee.
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.
