A BEWILDERING message emerged from behind the ominous doors of the Honor Committee this past Sunday. After hearing arguments on behalf of two accused students, the administrators of our beloved "community of trust" announced the student jury's verdict. Yes, they did it. Yes, they meant to do it. Nope, it's not a big deal.
This acquittal serves as a glaring example of the profound flaw in our honor system -- that is, of course, the single sanction.
The trial in question was that of College third years Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung, who, despite their best efforts, weren't able to convince a student jury that working together on individual homework assignments isn't reprehensible.
The pair stood accused of dishonorably working together on several short essays required for a political theory class -- collusion they claim was not explicitly forbidden by the class syllabus which read, "You are to answer these questions without anyone's help." According to the Honor Committee, the two were guilty on both counts of act and intent, but the offense failed to violate the seriousness clause of the honor code, and therefore the two were found "not guilty." Do not, however, confuse "not guilty" with "innocent."
The phrase "not guilty" is misleading, because it implies that they are not in fact, guilty, which they are. In this particular instance, the jury agreed -- they cheated.
Evidently, cheating on assignments that only consist of four percent of one's overall class grade isn't consequential enough to warrant a guilty verdict.
However, I can't quite convince myself that the jury didn't think the offense serious enough to deserve punishment on account of its triviality. If the charge isn't a potentially "serious" offense, then why bother having a trial at all? The seriousness clause was established in 1984, originally as a way to prevent ludicrous charges from being brought before the Committee. If an individual was accused of lying to his girlfriend about what he did last weekend (a potential offense), the committee was within the realm of jurisprudence to dismiss such charges.
A seriousness clause should prevent frivolous cases from resulting in punishment, not be an avenue for genuine cheaters to escape justice because their conspiracy wasn't grand enough.
Unfortunately, the honor system is presently so malfunctioning that the seriousness clause is not only valuable, it is absolutely necessary. As the jury concluded, Schlingbaum and McClung certainly did not deserve expulsion for their transgression, but no act of cheating should go unpunished.
Herein lies the profound question that the honor system fails to address -- what to do with offenses that fail to measure up as "serious" enough to warrant expulsion. Imagine requiring a jury to decide if an individual was guilty of trespassing, when the evidence was obviously aligned against the accused, but the mandatory punishment for all crimes was the death penalty. Not a single judicial system in the world has only one punishment available for all crimes.
Is there ever an instance in which a lack of options is inherently a positive thing? Plurality and diversity lend strength to complicated questions such as violations of the honor code.
There is nothing honorable about adhering to draconian tradition for the sake of tradition itself. Tradition must be rooted in virtue; it cannot stand on age alone or rely on naïve conventionality.
When tradition becomes embraced unthinkingly in a society, as the single sanction has at the University, it effects a certain tyranny over all things new, different and possibly better. This oppressive quality typically has no regard for the new idea's merit, rather it harbors resentment toward all things novel -- relying on unease and reactionary resistance to change.
The Honor Committee and single sanctionites would have you believe that there are two types of behavior a University student can perform: a grievous act of dishonor so horrific it warrants immediate, permanent expulsion from school, and all other acts that are no big deal. Celebrate honor all you want, eventually someone is going to mess up, and it doesn't always involve a sinister conspiracy.
There must be appropriate punishments for less serious offenses. Otherwise, the Honor Committee only offers the illusion of justice -- doling out punishment only for the most momentous of violations -- all the while, dozens of "no big deal" offenses continue to surreptitiously erode our community of trust.
So, to celebrate our newly minted precedent regarding the "seriousness" of honor offenses, I have plagiarized only four percent of this column. It's no big deal.
Dan Keyserling's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 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 | 5 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.
