SHAKESPEARE said, "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."
The Bard has a point here. If something is of a particular quality, then the word we use to describe it does not change its essence. But in choosing a word to serve as proxy for a concept, accuracy is important. People who lack the time to dissect an argument will often glean much from a single word. As adjudicators of the honor system, the Honor Committee must ensure that the words used to describe our system accurately reflect our core ideals.
In the upcoming elections, the student body will have an opportunity to vote whether to change the wording of the third criterion for an honor offense from "serious" to "not trivial." On its face, this appears to be a small change, and many will wonder why this is necessary.
One of the struggles that the Committee has seen our educators face has been explaining the intricate workings of the system in a clear and simple manner. To accomplish this, educators often condense complex ideas into single words. For instance, when we speak of the criteria for an honor offense, we describe it as requiring act, intent and seriousness rather than going into the more verbose definitions found in our bylaws. But as the year has gone on, we have realized that the term "seriousness" is often misinterpreted.
In discussions with both students and faculty, we have asked about the seriousness criterion. "Of course I know what that means," they've replied. "It's serious enough to get kicked out of the University." But the definition in the Honor bylaws states, "An act is considered to be serious if open tolerance thereof would be inconsistent with the community of trust."There is a distinct difference between the perception of the definition and the actual definition. It is this incongruity that we hope to rectify with the current referendum.
The Committee seeks to replace "seriousness" with "triviality." We feel that this word is more adherent to the spirit and meaning of the current definition. This change will prevent confusion and misinterpretation and serve to better educate our student body. So why triviality? The purpose of having a criterion separate from act and intent is to allow juries to add a dimension of severity to their deliberation. The third criterion is a tool to use when an offense has been committed but the act does not violate the community of trust, not warranting a guilty verdict.
As an illustration of this concept, let's say you are home and a friend you have no desire to speak with stops by.You ask your roommate to tell the person that you are not there. The roommate does so. Is he guilty of an honor offense? Certainly there is act (he lied) and intent (he meant to lie), but what about the toleration of this act being inconsistent with the community of trust? The third criterion is in existence for an offense that runs contrary to the notion that if a person is guilty on act and intent, he or she should be found guilty overall.So rather than choosing a word that parallels the idea that honor offenses are already grave, it makes sense to use a word that is contrary to the inertia of the first two criteria. "Trivial" is the word that the Honor Committee has identified as most closely representing this idea. An act is trivial if, even though the student was found guilty on act and intent, the open toleration of the act would not be inconsistent with the community of trust.
There has already been student feedback on this issue. At first glance, some have wondered whether this is an attempt to find more students guilty.It is important to point out that the standard by which a student will be judged will not change. Juries will still be instructed to find a student guilty if they believe the open toleration of the act would be inconsistent with the community of trust. This is not an attempt to lower the standards for a guilty verdict.This change is a deliberate effort to bring the understanding of the University community in line with the definitions outlined in the Honor Committee bylaws.
Our honor system is only as strong as the community supporting it. The Honor Committee believes that this change to triviality will give the community a more complete understanding of the system and contribute to a stronger community of trust.
Alexander Hawkins is an Honor Committee representative from the School of Medicine.
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.
