The University of Virginia's honor code has had an historic place in our University; interestingly, controversy has dominated much of its recent history and, doubtlessly, the single sanction has played a large role in that controversy. Critics have targeted the sanction, blaming it for being everything from "Hammurabi's Code" to a reason for the acquittal of ostensibly guilty students. However, these two critiques miss the point in two key regards.
To address claims that the single sanction is in fact far too draconian of a punishment, one must that sanctioning powers have multiple apparent purposes outlined in Article II of the honor constitution. One aspect - the one that these critics target - is the more obvious facade of a sanction: its punitive function to "exclude permanently" offenders from the University. Nevertheless, there is far more to sanctioning in our organized system than merely reprimanding someone in some way; in fact, the preamble to this same constitution notes that the powers given to the Honor Committee exist to "preserve the community of trust which that system fosters."
In other words, from the perspective of the accepted document governing us, everything else is ancillary to protecting a place where honor is taken as a given. In this regard, the single sanction performs admirably by seeking to remove the small number that transgresses in order to protect the rights of the great majority who live honorably. Students at the University enjoy unusual privileges afforded to them by the fact that we trust each other; if we allow those who have repudiated that trust to remain, then we actually punish everybody else. The sanction does not seek to destroy lives (dismissed students frequently transfer to quality institutions); rather, it simply says that we as a community require high standards for membership and those who commit honor infractions have waived their place in that.
More importantly, the single sanction has remained in place for a very logical reason. Despite frequent analogies made between Honor and the University Judiciary Committee, there does and should exist an incredibly large difference between these two organizations: namely, the honor code addresses issues with the deepest connection to the ethics and sanctity of academia. In contrast, UJC deals with matters that generally are illegal in broader society or simply deal with day-to-day operations of the University.
Honor offenses, on the other hand, speak to our consciences in a very significant way. After all, in our culture, we place a tremendous premium on hard work, and honor offenses in essence cut corners unfairly. While permitting cheating might not make it any more likely that muggings would occur on the Lawn, it certainly would debase the value of claims that a University diploma signifies a significant accomplishment and it would mean that those who remained honest would face the punishment of mistrust and would lag behind their less scrupulous peers.
In other words, our honor system is so fundamental to the nature of academia that it does not make sense to open the door to calculations of costs of punishments and selfish benefits. Indeed, what would the point of saying that dishonor is only sort of wrong be? It would reject the premise that integrity has a value in and of itself, and, in academia, where we seek to improve the world through knowledge and ideals, the abandonment of the single sanction would serve as a tragic rejection of those same ideals for which enlightened thinking has always strived.
Finally, our honor code asks of students only a very simple thing: Do not lie, cheat, or steal. Admittedly, circumstances can sometimes cloud issues of intent or triviality, but there is absolutely nothing complicated about what constitutes an honor offense. These rules are simple and easy to observe, and thus those who consciously violate them have no place in this University. As mentioned above, the honor 55 percent of the time. The single sanction provides that blanket of trust because in every interaction students realize that their peers have backed up their word with their enrollment at the University, and thus, in this imperfect world, the single sanction provides the best protection of real integrity.
Brian O'Neill is an Honor support officer and a third year in the college.
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.
