IN STUDENT elections at the University, it seems we always face a referendum dealing with either the function or powers of the Honor Committee. Whether a movement to end the single sanction or the current proposal to allocate more seats to the College of Arts and Sciences (an excellent idea, I might add), the student body has the opportunity to change the Honor Committee every year. On occasion it makes changes to the constitution. Because of low requirements in voter participation, change to the constitution can be done in ways not representative of the student body, and therefore the rules ought to be tightened up.
The constitution governing the Honor Committee states that any change must be proposed by either two-thirds of the Honor Committee or by a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the student body. The process roughly imitates the procedure for amending the constitution of the United States, which gives it some legitimacy. In proposing amendments to the United States Constitution, however, three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment for it to be ratified, whereas, in theory, only 10 percent of the student body could ratify an honor amendment.
So, the process for submitting an amendment to the honor constitution allows for amendments to appear on the ballot relatively easily, as only 10 percent must desire to see it up for ratification. This is as it should be; in an intellectual community we must value the opportunity to debate those issues that pertain to us directly, and the overarching nature of the Honor Committee and its constitution means that it relates to us all. Therefore, the relatively low requirement for referendum submission supports a community of free expression and a spirit of reform. The problem with the process lies not in the submission of amendments or referenda, but rather with the ratification process.
There are good things about this process. The Honor Committee cannot make changes to their constitution unilaterally; that power belongs solely to the student body at large. As those who stand to gain or lose the most as a result of any changes to the honor constitution, students deserve the final say on any changes.
Under the current procedures too few students could theoretically exercise tremendous influence over the honor constitution and by extension over the University community. It would be possible for 10 percent of the student body to enact an amendment to the honor constitution, as under the current constitution, amendments must be supported by "three-fifths of those students voting in a referendum election, provided that at least 10 percent of the student body votes in favor of the amendment." The key clause is "of those students voting in a referendum election." While not all students will ever vote in an election, to allow that only 10 percent could enact drastic changes to the Honor Committee seems ludicrous.
In 2006 and 2005, the student body voted against "consensus clauses" meant to increase the percentage of students required to change the honor constitution.These received a majority in the voting procedures, but failed to garner the 60 percent needed to pass. According to Honor Committee Chair Allison Tramba, she "would be hesitant to make a change that dramatic at this time" to the voting procedure, especially given the short existence of the University Board of Elections and its undetermined impact on student voting.
Therefore, the procedure ought to be amended to make it more difficult to change the constitution while still allowing flexibility for change. For an amendment to pass, a majority of the student body ought to at least consider it. I would argue that in order for an amendment to even be considered, half the student body should have to vote on it, and a majority of these votes should have to agree with it. This would mean that the support of 25 percent of the student body could change the constitution rather than the 10 percent in place today. While the 33 and 50 percent thresholds of previous consensus clauses might have scared off enough voters to case the consensus clause to fail, 25 percent should be moderate enough to allow the consensus clause to pass. This increase the protection for our tradition of honor without significantly abrogating the power of the student body.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 5 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 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 | 6 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.
