THE CONSENSUS clause, so aptlynamed by those who have presented it, is full of fuzzy language intent on tricking the student body into approving it. The truth of the clause hides behind words like "majoritarian" and "consensus" in an attempt to deceive the student body into checking "yes" when they go to vote. While the column opposite this one is sure to be full of vague ideals of democracy, let me explain to you what this proposal amounts to in real terms.
The consensus clause will mean the following: For any change to the honor system's most controversial policy (the single sanction) to take place, over 50 percent of the entire student body must vote to pass it. Now, let me give you the facts about this: 50 percent of the student body has never voted in any modern student election. Ever. Like it or not, we should face this fact rather than use it as a tool to permanently enshrine the single sanction under a guise of "consensus." Make no bones about it: this proposal is all about preserving the single sanction, and has no concern for the idea of a student consensus.
Let us look at the statistics. With the University population hovering right around 20,000 students, at least 10,000 of them would have to approve any type of change. Student voter turnout in spring election usually hovers between 25 and 30 percent. The last five years have all seen numbers between 4,500 and 5,750, nowhere near the 10,000 minimum supporters that the consensus clause would require for a change to be enacted. Based on the University's history, it is naïve to think that 10,000 students would turn out to vote in any election.
Our system of student self-governance is as vibrant and active as any in the country, but with the bar set at 50 percent of the eligible voting population -- that is to say, everyone who could vote, not just those who do -- nothing could get passed. If the same standard was applied to U.S. national elections, no president from Washington to Bush could have assumed office.
Undoubtedly, proponents of the consensus clause will say that as of now, a small minority of the student body can change the entire system for the majority of students. This is true, but a point that works both ways. If you buy this argument, consider the fact that the same will apply to the consensus clause.
The same standards they are fighting against will be all that it takes to implement this change as well -- three-fifths of voters and at least 10 percent of the student body. The authors argue that under this system, a mere 1,200 students could vote to reform the single sanction; in reality, the same number can vote to implement this clause which would entrench it. Such points are deceitfully left out of the arguments for the clause. So, when they argue that a small number of students should not be allowed to drastically change the system forever, agree with them. Vote against the consensus clause.
The University that we know is constantly evolving; its ability to adapt is its ability to survive. Our new university is dramatically different from the one that students knew 10, 20 and 30 years ago. Just as our predecessors passed the torch to us, we are expected to pass the University onto the next generation of students willing to take the reins. We cannot know what their challenges and intentions will be, just as the generation before us could not have known ours.
In that vein, we should not busy ourselves with imposing our own restrictions on what they can or cannot do with their University. Regardless of your view on the single sanction, understand that each generation of students should have the right to evaluate their institutions and make whatever changes they deem necessary to the evolving University. If we enact the consensus clause next week, we effectively limit their ability to adapt the University to changes that we cannot foresee at this time.
Whether you are for the single sanction or against it, you should vote against the consensus clause. We should not be afraid of debate and discussion about the most controversial topics within our community; in fact, these are the very things that keep students engaged in the system. An honor system without dialogue and conversation is one that is failing in its mission to preserve honor and the community of trust and failing in its mission to embody the attitudes and interests of its current student generation. The consensus clause promotes such an environment. The consensus clause is nothing but a slick, deceitful attempt to put a permanent end to the discussion and debate over the single sanction, and should be voted down by the student body.
Ben Cullop is a fourth year in the College. He is a senior educator for the honor system.
Read More
GILLIKIN and JOHNSON: U.Va., please rescind your Federal Executive Institute bid
By Steven L. Johnson and Matthew Gillikin | 2 hours agoBy withdrawing its competing bid and endorsing the Charlottesville City Schools’ bid, the University has a high-profile opportunity to strengthen its partnership with Charlottesville City Schools.
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | 2 days agoWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
