THE FLYERS are up. The chalk is down. The writing is on the wall. The Honor Committee has one of the longest "lame duck" periods of any organization on Grounds: nearly a month. During that time, the outgoing Committee prepares new Committee members for various case processing roles, tries to help them form a consensus about the next year's goals, and waits anxiously to vacate their old offices.
In advance of the new Committee's election, there will again be an open Honor Town Hall meeting this Sunday evening in the Dome Room of the Rotunda. The last one, an introductory meeting to the Honor Committee in the fall, was a nice first step. This Sunday, with a single sanction referendum, an initiative to expand the representation of the College in the Committee, and seven students running to represent Darden alone (that's right, Darden), I cautiously expect attendance to be much higher.
Many of the races to represent Honor this year encourage me. Most races are contested, and some prominent names from outside of the support officer pool have made it onto the ballot. There are candidates from different racial backgrounds, different political views and differing positions on what will be at stake next year. From the perspective of the elections, it would appear that Honor has made some strides in conjuring up student interest this year.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder about the lack of case reports. I realize that the reporting of Honor cases is cyclical, and that one year can see 50 cases while the next can see 90. As Vice Chair for Trials Jay Trickett pointed out at the meeting on Sunday, in the 1999-2000 calendar year the Honor Committee held only 16 trials. Still, I cannot help but look at this particular year -- one that saw three open trials, two of which resulted in not-guilty verdicts rendered on the basis of triviality -- and see it as a turning point for Honor.
In the February 14 editorial, the Managing Board correctly observed the reluctance of faculty to utilize the Honor system to investigate potential violations of academic integrity. Further, I believe it fair to assert that, "If the Committee senses reluctance among faculty to report honor offenses, they should look for new ways to assuage faculty concerns and renew their confidence in the system."
And I am by no means a fan of the single sanction. After a year on Committee, I can honestly say that I believe it to be the single most significant factor in limiting faculty and student reports. And, if one takes the faculty survey at its word, it remains the single biggest concern for faculty who want to see the system changed.
While this Committee has certainly addressed (and attempted to "assuage") other important faculty concerns about the system and hopes that its efforts will restore their confidence, I believe next year's committee cannot possibly avoid providing its own alternative.
This year, the Honor Committee has accomplished a lot in the way of increasing its visibility on Grounds. We have reached out more than in previous years, and this last open meeting of our term is a restatement of this commitment, as are upcoming events in March. We have greatly improved our investigations process, addressing one of the key concerns of faculty in the survey. We have given more education presentations to athletes than ever before. In large measure, the news at Sunday's meeting will be pretty good.
As for my own community concern, I remain disappointed and frankly a little put off by the rhetoric of the pro-single sanction campaign this year. I feel at least partly responsible for not guaranteeing the presence of a viable alternative to the single sanction this Spring. This year's alternative, drafted not by the Honor Committee, but by "Hoos Against the Single Sanction," unfortunately does not provide the answer that the University needs. Equally frustrating, the Committee's ad hoc on the single sanction spent most of its time considering which position to take on this referendum. This body never made a formal presentation of alternatives to the general Committee.
It is vital for the future of the debate about the single sanction and honor in general that students and faculty pack the house on Sunday. This year's Committee has made some big changes. It's not too soon to send the message that the University needs more of them.
A-J Aronstein is the Vice Chair for Community Relations for the Honor Committee.
Read More
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 20 hours agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
STUMP: Housing and Residence Life is deaf to students’ need for paper towels
By Ezgi Stump | YesterdayThe decisions of HRL neither reflect the preferences of residents nor appear to be made of sound reasoning.
RASHID: Denying compensation to Resident Advisors will leave us behind
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 2 days agoHousing and a meal plan are not payments so much as the bare minimum for RAs to exist at all.
