HONOR has seen better days at our University. It took two open honor trials within the last year, but I have lost all faith in the honor process. Open honor trial juries have shown to be either confused in their task or uncertain in dismissing students. With the discovery of these flaws, the effects of the single sanction become even more questionable.
The last year has seen more activity from the Honor Committee than in quite some time. In particular, the two open honor trials opened the honor system to criticism.The all-or-none single sanction shows its flaws most clearly in the contrast of the two trials. In the first open honor trial in three years, Joe Schlingbaum and Lindsay McClung were found guilty on act and intent but acquitted based on the seriousness clause. In the second open honor trial of the academic year, Steve Gilday was found guilty of lying to his professor about photocopying a sheet of his exam, despite sending an e-mail fully explaining the situation to his professor.
These two decisions clearly are not congruent with one another. The lack of punishment in the first open honor trial is far too lax when act and intent have been judged guilty, while the dismissal from the University for photocopying an exam question is far too harsh. Few students would contend the alleged honor violations of the second trial exceeded the first trial so severely. Yet Schlingbaum and McClung have returned to a sense of normalcy while Gilday fights to remain at the University.
The jurors of the honor trials have expressed confusion about the honor process. Schlingbaum and McClung maintain the jurors confused doubts between the two criteria, act and intent and seriousness. Act and intent are voted on together, leaving open the possibility of jurors confusing their judgment of the two aspects. The jurors may "average" their judgment of guilt. For example, a juror may feel the accused committed the act, but may be on the fence about intent. In general, then, the juror may feel inclined to vote guilty for the two together, even though they would have voted not guilty for intent if voted on separately.
In the recent open honor trial, the jurors themselves claimed there was confusion about the exact charge against Gilday. According to former Honor Chair David Hobbs, the trial chair and observer reassured the Committee that there was no confusion among the jurors. "There were no firsthand accounts of confusion," according to Hobbs. However, with three jurors detecting confusion among their peers, the issue must be addressed or corrected for in some way.
Some level of confusion can be expected at honor trials. Students are thrust into unfamiliar roles as jurors with a special power. The Honor Committee has a duty to not only ensure jurors understand what they are assessing, but to establish that jurors are comfortable with the enforcement of the single sanction. The jurors are given two separation orientations, one a general orientation and the other a trial-specific orientation, according to Hobbs. Even if students understand what they are assessing before the trial, that understanding may become clouded as the trial continues.
The triviality clause shows a huge potential for confusion. The Honor Committee defines triviality as, "Would open toleration of such an act impair the community of trust sufficiently enough to warrant permanent dismissal from the University?" Student will have differing opinions of what impairs the community of trust, meaning jurors are assessing a trial based on different standards. This gives great discretion to the particular jury pool, potentially leading to inconsistent verdicts depending on how each jury member defines triviality.
The impact of confusion by the jury is enhanced by the lack of precedent in honor trials. Precedent allows argument by referencing prior decisions made by other juries, allowing the jury to see how others viewed similar penalties. The character of the jury will differ greatly from trial to trial, causing inconsistent decisions for offenses that may be, in fact, identical. If nothing else, by not allowing precedence, the burden increases even more on the ten jurors, potentially creating anxiety about the dismissal of the accused.
A recent report by the ad hoc Committee for the Investigation of the Single Sanction lends support to the idea that jurors do not feel comfortable with the single sanction. Jurors promise to support the single sanction before serving, but 148 jurors in the last year indicated they would have changed their vote had there been a lesser sanction. Jurors promise to support the single sanction before they actually see the accused student before them. As the trial goes on and jurors learn about the student, the jurors may become more and more apprehensive to dismiss the student from the University.
Jurors will never feel entirely comfortable with the single sanction. Even if students say they feel comfortable with its enforcement, that can change as students may feel a connection to the accused for whatever reason. The net effect is that real cheaters are not given any sort of penalty, even if have committed an act that violates the honor code.
Our honor system reasons through a system of ideals, assuming that the liars, cheaters and thieves of the world are obvious. With the open honor trials displaying juror confusion and uncertainties, the ambiguity of these labels becomes clear. The flawed honor process makes the single sanction feel like nothing more than "cruel and unusual punishment."
Rajesh Jain is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at rjain@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.
