THIS YEAR, the Honor Committee finds itself in a tough spot. Again it must consider the effects of increasing distance between faculty and the Committee; between students and Committee; and between the community as a whole and the idea of honor once again.
The Committee has to address concerns about diversity, lengthy and burdensome case processing, and concerns about a lack of professionalism once again.
And it must face the imposing dilemma of the Single Sanction. That's right, once again
This will be my fourth year at the University, and to the best of my knowledge the kinds of problems facing the Honor Committee have not changed in anything but degree. After three years at the University, I can only imagine the exasperation of faculty members who say they have seen the same concerns dominate Honor's attention for the last 10, 15 and 20 years.
It is hard to tell if the problems are increasing indefinitely, or if the University is reaching the climax of another cycle in which the following will happen:
The Honor Committee half-heartedly offers alternatives to the single sanction for spring elections.
The student body rejects them, much to the surprise of those who believed that more University students would support Honor in the absence of the single sanction.
The cycle begins again, shaky confidence restored in the system.
The Class of 2007 will graduate, and the next Committee will start talking about revising the language of the bylaws concerning the linguistic difference between "Conscientious Retraction" and "Meticulously Formulated Admission of Wrongdoing."
How many more times can the Honor Committee endure this kind of Webster's Thesaurus cycle of policy degeneration?
Better question: How to break out of it?
Dan Heuchert's oft-cited article in Virginia Magazine claims the future of the Honor Committee is "bleak," but offers the consolation, "all is not lost."
But to break the cycle, the Honor Committee must work with the University community to decide exactly Heuchert might means by using the word "all."
We have to determine exactly what, if anything, we defend when we claim to be defending honor. Heuchert cites the statistic that most students and faculty are in favor of the idea of honor. What we all scratch our head about is the systematization of that idea -- the notion that we all trust each other to hold to the same standard of honorability, and yet require a monstrous, daunting and often mysterious bureaucracy to maintain that standard.
Some students say, "Honor is about leaving my bag unattended in Clemons and not having to worry about it for hours. Now throw me another Natty Lite."
Others say, "I'm against the single sanction and that's that. Now throw me another Natty Lite."
Some call honor an outdated ideological relic from the hierarchical, white, male society of the Old South.
Some prefer to write it off as a marketing tool for attracting top students from around the country.
In an environment of doubts, misinformation, lack of transparency and an overall failure of Honor to engage with students and faculty in a debate about where we stand now, we cannot possibly get out of the tiresome game of Single Sanction Roulette.
This year will be different.
The Honor Committee will bolt out of the gate to recruit new support officers. We will address the recurring problem of lack of diversity within the support officer pool by recruiting in traditionally underrepresented groups. By working together directly with the student leaders of minority groups, we hope to get a broader range of inputs into the group responsible for investigating and trying cases, as well as educating the student body about Honor.
With the expanded Honor Representatives program, the Committee hopes to increase dialogue with faculty members. Support officers will talk directly faculty, and we hope to get direct input from individual faculty, and emphasize that honor belongs in the classroom. A special sub-committee on the relationship between academics and honor will address the ways that research and honor depend on each other. We must emphasize the ways that having honor in the classroom makes better students, better research and an increased sense of the value of academic pursuits.
We will communicate more with the students we represent. Through letters to the student body from representatives, Committee meetings in public spaces; and increased attendance at CIO meetings, we will increase our presence around Grounds. We want students to yell at us, expect more from us, demand that we justify our positions as representatives.
Other sub-committees will address the relationship between the Committee and the community, speaking about core goals and ideals, as well as to keeping our eye on the elephant in the room: the single sanction.
These initiatives aim to close the distance between Honor and the community. The Committee will aim to work with students, rather than attempting to solve its problems behind the key-card-guarded doors of Newcomb Hall's fourth floor.
With increased debate and awareness about the issues that surround the single sanction, I hope that this year's Committee will offer an alternative to the sanction that will allow us to move together toward new debates.
Honor finds itself in a tough spot again.
But I hope the University trust this Committee's ability to break the cycle and take a hard look at how important Honor is here -- in the possibility of unifying the student body and faculty and renewing confidence in the institution that protects an ideal.
A-J Aronstein is the vice chair for community relations for the Honor Committee.
Read More
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | YesterdayEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
SULLIVAN: On making Housing a home — for student self-governance
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe most obvious and necessary remedy for HRL going forward is coincidentally one of the greatest tools on any Resident Staff across Grounds — communication.
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | December 27, 2024Standardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
