OVER THE past 18 months, the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee has been examining issues of honor at the University. As a member of this committee, I have grown to appreciate the commitment of Honor Committee members and the many students who participate in the honor process through education, investigations and trials. They represent the honor system at its best.
At the same time, these student leaders cannot alone assure that we are realizing our much-heralded "community of trust." In the eyes of many faculty, there are serious flaws with the system, most of which can be traced to the single sanction. Pedagogically, the single sanction does not make sense to faculty. Arguments have been made that the single sanction unintentionally erodes honor at the University by "forcing" many students to turn a blind eye to cases of lying, cheating or stealing that they witness. While students generally feel a sense pride in the honor system, I question the system's original intent versus its current practice, given the extraordinarily low percentage of student-initiated cases. I also question why students have not taken the initiative to restore the non-toleration clause to signal their willingness to take responsibility for case initiation when they witness dishonorable conduct.
Many faculty see the single sanction as a "tradition" that obscures much of its own history of change and actually impedes the honor system. The single sanction has changed over the years, and it should continue to evolve. It no longer functions in the same way as it did in the 19th century, or in the 20th century, for that matter.
For example, the elimination of the non-toleration clause, the introduction of conscientious retractions and psychological evaluations leading to dismissal of charges before trial, and the emergence of the University Judiciary Committee to address offenses that previously would have been deemed honor violations, all indicated dramatic evolutionary changes in their day. Nonetheless, the single sanction remains as the ultimate and irrevocable act of removal upon a finding of guilt.
It is nostalgic myopia to view tradition as unchanging. Tradition involves invention, not stasis. However, many members of the University community equate the single sanction in some purified form as somehow synonymous with honor. While it may seem ironic or even shocking to some, many faculty believe that it is only through serious reform of the single sanction that honor will be revived at the University.
Faculty support is essential to the integrity and effectiveness of the student-run honor system at the University. In the current system, with only 12 percent of case initiations coming from students, the honor system clearly depends on the faculty who are still willing to participate in the system. Of course, they are encouraged to do so. However, in many instances, faculty choose not to initiate cases. Often, they are approached by students who are unwilling to initiate cases themselves after having witnessed honor offenses. Like faculty, they are not required to do so. From the available data, it is clear that this elective non-participation among students is fairly widespread since participation became essentially optional 30 years ago.
What can students do to address the voluntary non-participation by students and faculty? From our many conversations with faculty, we on the Faculty Senate know that the problem is directly attributed to the single sanction as the sole instrument of punishment. Most faculty would prefer to see a redemptive system that allows students to learn from mistakes. Most faculty appreciate a system of justice that can fit the punishment to the crime. I believe that most faculty would participate in a transformed honor system that acknowledges the possibility of redemption or reform.
Alternatives to the single sanction are being formulated by the Sanction Reform Committee of the Honor Committee at this time. I applaud the student initiative in developing alternatives for the larger student population's consideration. This is healthy and represents a deep commitment to revitalizing and perpetuating honor.Such an appropriate evolution of the honor system can only serve to strengthen student and faculty participation and thereby continue to build a community of trust at the University of Virginia.
Kenneth Schwartz is a professor in the School of Architecture and chair of the Faculty Senate's Academic Affairs 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.
