ABOUT a year ago, opponents of the single sanction demonstrated the depth of their resolve to eliminate the organizing principle of our honor system. They began collecting signatures to force the "forgiveness clause," a proposed alternative to the single sanction, on the spring ballot. This happened despite the fact that the Honor Committee voted down the proposal as an unworkable sanctioning regime and that even The Cavalier Daily said it was a bad idea. Opponents of the single sanction are recklessly determined to do anything they can to end the sanction, no matter what happens to the health of the honor system.
Thankfully, the group Hoos Against Single Sanction failed in its attempt to force "forgiveness" on the spring ballot. But their effort revealed the vulnerability of our single sanction and our honor system to attempts by reckless factions to impose their will on the rest of us. Currently just 10 percent of the students could ratify a foolish proposal like the "forgiveness clause," overturning 163 years of consensus that the single sanction is the best fit for honor at the University.
The electoral vulnerability of the single sanction is troubling because the sanction is so central to the honor system that its elimination -- absent thoughtful consideration and planning -- would be utterly destructive.
This is so for two reasons. On one hand, it is the cornerstone of the philosophy of the system. We are able to live in a community of trust, a place where students can trust one another even as strangers, because no student who is found to have committed an act of lying cheating, or stealing is allowed to remain in this community.
But more tangibly, the single sanction is the organizing principle of the honor system's structure. The procedures codified in the honor by-laws and the abundant due-process protections enumerated in the constitution are all products of the single sanction. Its gravity mandates that accused students being processed through the system be protected by an often debilitating number of safeguards and only be convicted if a supermajority of their peers believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they intended to commit an honor offens
Tearing the single sanction out of this structure without responsible consideration and planning would leave us with a functionless honor system -- one built for one serious sanction but now trying to accommodate many lighter ones.
This is the reason we support this year's moderate version of the consensus clause amendment to the Honor Committee's constitution. This amendment will raise the electoral threshold for changing the sanction from 10 percent to 33 percent. Raising the requirement in this way will help ensure that proposals to end the sanction are well thought-out and approved by a broad segment of the student population. This will not make change impossible. Voter turnout in spring elections has been increasing in recent years. Plus, the consensus clause itself could still be changed by 10 percent of students. But it will make change more responsible.
There have been a lot of unwarranted criticisms of the consensus clause over the past week or so, perhaps leaving the impression that this is a measure being pushed by a small band of students. But this isn't true. The consensus clause was placed on the ballot with signatures by over 2,700 students -- 600 in excess of the minimum requirement -- and has been endorsed by the Greek Governing Councils and by three recent chairs of the Honor Committee. Many people see the need for this reasonable change.
When the polls open this Friday, we hope that students will resoundingly endorse this proposal for responsible student self-governance. The single sanction is a controversial topic on which the student body is deeply divided. But we think that there is little controversy over the notion that the honor system is a fundamental part of our University community which deserves our diligent and responsible attention. Vote "yes" to referendum number one if you support deliberation and responsible governance.
Karin Agness and Josh Hess are fourth years in the College.
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.
