THE SINGLE sanction inspires rhetoric. I have heard it referred to as the academic "deathpenalty," as the "fundamental cornerstone of UVA" and just about everything in between. In the next few weeks, community members will offer their perspective on the single sanction in this newspaper. The debate has begun. Done well, this debate could be one of the most refreshing events in recent UVa history. But this requires honesty on both sides. That is why I am writing this column. I can't tell you what to conclude about the single sanction. I can say that we need to cut through the rhetoric and focus on the issues. And to do this, you need have a sense of the stakes, the history, and a working knowledge of the sanction itself. This is the perspective I can offer.
The stakes
When rubber hits the road, you have the opinion that matters. The Honor Committee makes suggestions; the student body makes policy. Faculty members, alumni and administrators all have valuable voices that inform your opinions. But in the end, the system was designed to constantly reflect the beliefs of the current generation of students.It is our collective choice.
This is a serious choice. The sanction we institute must be ethical. It must be a sanction students can administer. It must be legal, i.e. guarantee due process and fair hearings. It must reflect the values of a large and diverse community. It must give these community members pride and trust.
If a proposal is made to the student body regarding honor sanctions, you ought to consider it in light of these standards. Likewise, you ought to scrutinize the current sanction and decide if it fails these standards. Ultimately, this Committee will implement the policy you choose; you will have to live with it. This discussion has immediate and tangible consequences.
The history
The debate is not new. In the last 32 years there have been at least 10 student referenda on the single sanction. The closest voting margins seem to be around fall 1980, when half of the electorate voted to change the sanction. The least-supported referendum in this period was the "informed retraction" proposal of spring 2002, which received about 30-percent support.
Constitutionally, three-fifths of the voting student body must approve any change to the sanction. Any change will require significantly more student support than the 1980 referendum.Other votes to alter the honor system have been successful this period.Conscientious retractions allowing students to come forward of their own volition and avoid expulsion were added. Students were granted the opportunity to have cases heard by a jury of random students. Change in the honor system has precedent.
The sanction
Finally, you ought to have an accurate sense of the status quo. What happens now when a student is convicted of an intentional, serious honor offense? It usually takes about six weeks for a case to go from investigation to verdict; there are numerous opportunities before the trial where it might be dismissed. The final verdict comes from a jury of peers.Immediately after a guilty verdict, the student meets with honor counsel to review the appeal process. If the student believes something fundamentally unfair has occurred at any point in the hearing, the Committee thoroughly reviews the charges. If necessary, we remedy the unfairness, including dismissing a case or granting a new trial.
If a student decides not to pursue an expedited appeal or grievance -- one filed within five days of the trial -- I write a letter to the University Registrar informing her that this student is guilty of an honor offense. The student is dismissed. No mention of the honor hearing goes in the student's file. The Committee does not share information with anyone besides the Registrar without the student's permission. Most dismissed students find success entering another institution if they are honest about why they are leaving UVa, and they often get help from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
I hope these three points will help you sort through the arguments and form an opinion. And I hope you will share this opinion. The debate goes much farther than The Cavalier Daily or the honor offices, and you have a right to be heard.
Meghan Sullivan is chair of the 2004-2005 Honor Committee.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 11 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 | 2 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 | 3 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.
