IT IS an unfortunate fact that formany students at the University, honor is virtually synonymous with the single sanction. While discussion of honor is dominated almost exclusively by the stalemated single sanction debate, the community of trust continues to suffer from more serious problems.
This problem is illustrated by Sunday's report from the Committee for the Investigation of the Single Sanction. The report, utilizing survey data, shows that the main flaw in honor system is widespread apathy, not its method of sanctioning.
With regard to the practical effects of the single sanction, the committee's report is mixed. The committee found that cheating rates at the University are about the same as at other schools with honor codes. Of the compared schools with honor codes, only one included the single sanction. This suggests that a single sanction honor code is, in practice, about as effective a deterrent as a multiple sanction code.
The effects of the single sanction on reporting honor violations are also inconclusive. Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said that a lack of belief in the single sanction might prevent them from reporting a violation, but 67 percent said they might be deterred by an "uneasiness about possibly causing the dismissal of another student."
It appears that many who believe theoretically in the single sanction are not willing to accept its result, an understandable but fundamentally illogical position.
While the single sanction may have negative effects on the honor system, the report exposed a deeper problem: a widespread lack of commitment to honor. Many students admitted cheating in situations when the risk of getting caught is low. For example, about a third of the respondents admitted to copying material from sources, either written or electronic, without any attribution.
Also, 20 percent admitted to obtaining assignment extensions with false excuses. These actions are not in some gray area between right and wrong, and the widespread occurrence of such clearly dishonorable behavior is alarming.
Even more concerning is the report's finding that 47 percent of the student body "definitely" or "likely" would not report a violation, just because they "prefer not to get involved." It is difficult to imagine how the community of trust can continue to exist when nearly half of its members simply do not care enough to be involved. In an interview, Honor Chair David Hobbs said, "That's the most concerning thing and what we need to work on the most."
The question is, how can the honor system be revitalized? While single sanction opponents might disagree, switching to a multiple sanction system would do little to combat apathy. If students simply do not care enough about honor to uphold it, reducing the punishment's severity will not change their minds.
A more creative proposal to restore student participation in the system is the reinstatement of the non-toleration clause to the Honor Constitution. The clause, removed during the 1970s, would require any student who witnesses an honor violation to report it. If the student fails to report a violation, honor charges could be brought against him or her.
This proposal is philosophically consistent with the honor code, but in practice would be very hard to enforce. Additionally, Hobbs points out, "you can't necessarily solve a problem with another sanction." Even if the clause could be implemented effectively, it would likely breed resentment against the honor code. The non-toleration clause is not the solution to apathy, but it is the type of idea that needs to be explored.
Ultimately, however, the health of the University's honor system depends on the students. While we ought to continue discussing reforms to the Honor constitution, new amendments and clauses, no matter how reasonable, will not be enough to restore the trust to our community. The problem is not primarily in the honor system's institutions, but in our attitudes towards. The Single Sanction Committee's report shows that, if any lasting revival of the community of trust can occur, it will have to come from the bottom up.
Stephen Parsley's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sparsley@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.
