THE HONOR Committee is once again the center of controversy and buzz as the upcoming spring elections rapidly approach. Both the Students for the Preservation of Honor and its counterpart, Hoos Against the Single Sanction, have advocated proposals dealing with honor's most hallowed tenet: the single sanction. Another independent group of students involved with honor issues recently began a petition campaign to garner the necessary 2,000 signatures to have a proposed referendum placed on the ballot. Unfortunately, their proposed amendment, the so-called "consensus clause" is both ill-advised and deceiving.
The "consensus clause," if enacted, would be an insertion into the Honor Committee Constitution that in essence reads: any modification or other change concerning the Honor Committee's sanctioning powers must be approved by a simple majority of the University student body.
Currently, in order for an honor constitutional amendment to achieve ratification, the amendment must pass with 60 percent of the vote and at least 10 percent (or roughly 2,000 students) of the overall student body must vote in the election. For example, an amendment that received 70 percent of the vote but only in an election in which 1,000 students voted would fail.
Single sanction proponents and others argue that such a low threshold makes the single sanction vulnerable to change by a low percentage of students. Hypothetically, an amendment to abolish the single sanction could be passed with only 1,200 votes, which represents 60 percent of 10 percent of the overall student population of about 20,000.
The consensus clause disguises itself as an attempt to simplify the procedure by which the honor system's sanctioning system can be changed, but is in fact a sly attempt to permanently solidify the single sanction.One might assume that under the new clause in order for an honor amendment to pass, the measure must garner a "simply majority" of the vote as the amendment reads.
But this simple majority is not of the voting students but rather of the entire student body. With a student population of just under 20,000, this means that an astounding 10,000 votes would be needed, thus make it virtually impossible to ever change the Honor Committee's sanctioning system.
The reason that 10,000 votes is such an outrageous threshold can be found in the voting totals from past University elections. Last year, three University referenda gathered combined (yea and nay) vote totals of 4,396, 5,625 and 5,093 votes respectively.In other words, barely a quarter of the overall student body bothered to vote.
In fact, in the last five years, the biggest turnout for a referendum was in 2001, when ironically an honor amendment to remove the seriousness clause failed by a vote of 2,483 to 3,192 in which 5,675 students voted. While it's conceivable that such a polarizing issue as the single sanction might boost turnout, it's inconceivable that 10,000 students would even vote in a University election, making the 10,000 yea votes necessary all the more ridiculous.
If the "consensus clause" is such a consensus, it's curious that the amendment's backers didn't seek the support of the Honor Committee. While the proposal was not generated by the Honor Committee (but by a group of involved students), if this is such an important issue than the proponents of the consensus clause should have at least presented it to the Honor Committee.
A separate honor proposal, the "forgiveness clause," sought and failed to secure ballot support from the committee, but at least they tried.
The same argument employed by proponents of the consensus clause can just as easily be used against them.All it will take to pass the proposal is 1,200 yes votes. Such a low number of students should not have the opportunity to, in essence, permanently cement the single sanction as an institution at the University.
Whether you agree with the single sanction or not, realize that if the consensus clause amendment passes, it will be virtually impossible to ever change the sanctioning system. Advocates of the consensus clause are engaging in nothing more than a slick attempt, by using a catchy title and fuzzy language, to forever enshrine the controversial provision at the University.
Joe Schilling's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jschilling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 5 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.
