FOR A LONG time, the ongoingand seemingly endless debateover the honor system has been something I have tried to avoid jumping in to. After all, it is a difficult moral question to reconcile the fairness of the honor system versus the importance of the single sanction and what it says about the University's principles. The recent open trial and the ensuing renewal of debate, however, has forced us all to look beyond single sanction and to think about how a case actually gets to Honor. From this closer look it becomes evident that a clearer, standard definition of what constitutes an honor violation combined with a better defined line between the University Judiciary Committee and Honor would benefit us all.
Looking into the Constitutions of the Honor Committee and the UJC, they appear at first glance to be very similar. Both groups draw their authority from the student body as well as from the Board of Visitors, both operate in much the same style and both promise to uphold the integrity and values of the University. However, there is one critical factor the UJC delineates which Honor almost entirely leaves up in the air: what exactly constitutes a violation.
According to its constitution, the UJC has the authority to investigate and provide sanctions for violations based on "the Standards of Conduct adopted by the Board of Visitors in October 1970." These 12 standards, which can be accessed via the UJC Web site, range from physical or sexual assault to breaking state or federal laws to impeding pedestrian traffic or not complying with a University official. What is critical, is that despite these 12 standards being somewhat generalized they are still specific enough that any student, faculty member or administrator can recognize a violation when he or she sees one.
The Honor Committee's fundamental basis is very different. According to the Honor Constitution, the committee will "determine and publicize what constitutes, in the view of the current student generation of the University, an honor violation." This is an interesting and very ambiguous statement because nowhere on the Committee's Web site or in any publication I have seen has Honor identified what exactly constitutes an honor violation. Along with the necessity of maintaining confidentiality, this means that aside from the standard "lying, cheating, or stealing," there is really nothing to guide even the Committee, much less University students and staff.
The problem with this policy is that an honor violation can change daily at the whim of whoever is sitting on a jury. Though jurors are educated on procedure and the purpose of honor, there is little that can really be said that will not be an influence on the juror's decision and thus make the trial inherently unfair. Why? Because there are no clear guidelines.
Critics will argue that it is easy to recognize when someone is lying, cheating or stealing. Yet this begs the question: If a violation is so easy to recognize, then why are student initiations so low? More importantly, why is there a need for the seriousness clause? A clear definition of what is and what is not an honor violation would mean that every case reaching trial would by default be considered serious. It would also allow for a fair and consistent process for student jurors as well as Committee members to fall back on.
The other key factor that has surprisingly been less of an issue than it should be is where to draw the line between UJC and Honor. The UJC has certain situations laid out in its standards of conduct, yet what is to stop Honor from stepping in and claiming jurisdiction? Moreover, if Honor were to do so, who would get to decide who gets the case? The recent Stephanie Garrison trial shows that occasionally cases are referred from one group to the other, yet the basic flaw remains. These inconsistencies and the ambiguity of Honor's jurisdiction pose a powerful deterrent to student involvement and weakens both systems.
So what exactly can be done? After all, both Honor and the UJC are critical to the integrity of the University and are responsible for providing fair judgment to its students.
To begin, the UJC and the Honor Committee need to have better defined roles, specifically in relation to each other. Clearly there are some instances that merit some other punishment -- for example cases of underage drinking -- but that would be dismissed if they directly to Honor. At the same time, certain cases such as cheating on a test or plagiarizing clearly belong to Honor.
Clarifying the proper roles of Honor and the UJC, and better defining what violations pertain to each, is critical to maintaining the strength and integrity of the student judiciary system at this University. Giving students, faculty and staff the information they need to make a good decision can only add fairness and respect to a much-needed institution.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
