IN 1842, the story goes, the honor system was created in response to the murder of a professor, but today's system is more concerned about form signatures and frog labs. Those 19th century students wanted to preserve a community of trust in which lying, cheating and stealing are grounds for expulsion; later generations have found this proclamation much more problematic in practice. The trial of Stephanie Garrison centered on computer system crashes, an absent UJC educator, an e-mail spam blocker and a sheet of paper Garrison termed a "formality." As a spectator at the trial, I could tell that the verdict would be more a function of the whims of the particular jury rather than whether or not an honor violation had occurred. The fundamental flaw of the single sanction is that, except in the most extreme cases of cheating and lying, the severity of punishment does not rationally fit the crime.
First of all, a graduated punishment system would be more palatable to juries who do not want to acquit a liar but don't want to see her expelled or lose her diploma. This option offers a rational punishment, not a soft one. We say that liars are not welcome at the University, but not all liars look like Darth Vader, and not all lies are the same. Garrison was a devoted, conscientious member of the University community. She gave tours to prospective students and interned at the Center for Politics. For four years -- minus one decision on one day -- she was a model member of the community of trust.
A rational punishment system would encourage students to initiate cases against their peers. In a study conducted by the Honor Committee's ad hoc committee on the investigation of the single sanction, 27 percent of the jurors polled who voted "not guilty" in a trial with a "not guilty" verdict would have changed their vote if the sanction were less harsh. People don't initiate trials unless the offense is particularly egregious because they don't want to destroy a peer's academic career. The most recent media blitzes on honor centered on the cases of Garrison and Steve Gilday, both of whom had graduate students initiate trials against them. Honor and a few graduate students like Gavin Reddick are not supposed to be the moral watchdogs of the community. If the single sanction is to preserve the standards of the community, it needs to be used regularly by the community. If there were a graduated system of punishments, more students would initiate cases because they wouldn't feel pangs of guilt in doing so, regardless of whether the student committed an honor violation or not.
Some students believe any lie, regardless of its gravity, should warrant the single sanction of expulsion from the University. But I would venture to say that the majority of otherwise honorable students consciously commit an honor violation multiple times during their stay here at the University. Using a fake ID or saying you are 21 in order to get into a fraternity party is a lie. Though this is undoubtedly true, I haven't seen the Honor Committee patrolling Rugby Rd. on Friday and Saturday nights. Honor should step down from its self-imposed moral pedestal and worry about finding a pragmatic, rational and, most of all, useable punishment policy.
Essentially, a one-size-fits-all sanction is not a rational system of punishment. Of course, Hammurabi's Code worked really well in ancient Mesopotamia, too. But modern society rejects the idea of cutting off the hand of someone who steals; the punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. Honor has morphed into system buttressed by a fringe group of ideologues rather than a conduit for moral accountability among students. Honor still has a place at the University, but it must respond to the community it professes to serve. In the school year 2004-2005, 59 percent of the students who voted in the elections asserted that Honor should investigate alternatives to the single sanction. However sacrosanct it may be, the Honor Committee is still subject to the will of the student body.
The single sanction sounds very inspirational as a marketing technique to attract prospective students. But when students feel that no matter what, justice cannot be served, a profound problem exists. Students should not be sacrificed at the altar of a prestigious-sounding sanction. Honor should respect the results of the referendum and look into alternative punishments for less serious offenses, such as 200 community service hours for students like Garrison who have already graduated. Unfortunately, Honor shrinks away from curtailing its power over the student body, choosing to encourage a community of paranoia rather than one of trust.
Marta Cook's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mcook@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.
