THE HONOR system at the University has been the subject of much debate and controversy recently, as well it should be, given an illustrious history that no longer stands up to reality. Long considered one of the most cherished institutions at the University and an impressive achievement by the student body, the virtues of the current order rely on history, not reality.
Although conversations on this subject almost always end up haggling over the single sanction, the problem is much larger. It reflects on an overtly idealized and recalcitrant system that is unjust and inappropriate for the most basic of human actions and sensibilities. Theoretically and practically, our understanding of what honor should be about needs a transformation, one that eliminates reliance on timeless exemplifications and starts to evaluate infringements under the influence of our college experiences.
The three core actions that the honor system prohibits -- lying, cheating, and stealing -- are universally recognized as bad things, but these are values that should be instilled within us primarily from parents and society at large, not from an honor system. After all, anything else would be too contrived: If people are moral because an honor system tells them to be moral, it doesn't say much about their commitment to behaving properly.
Furthermore, punishment and the triviality clause aside, there are personal issues relating to those three actions that the University should have no business regulating. For obvious reasons, the University should have something to say on cheating, but lying is an entirely different concept in that it is both widespread and generally occurs in matters not relating to academics.
The most appropriate issue any honor system at a university reasonably can and should legislateis cheating, whose definition could be broadened to include lying to gain an unfair academic advantage. But ultimately, although we may not say it publicly, we know well enough that's what itcomes down to.
Prevailing opinions on the honor system normally focus on preservation of the status quo or incremental change. A ballot measure currentlychampioned by Hoos Against Single Sanction, referendum four, aims to rectify some of the procedural problems of honor, but while its flexibility in a new era is refreshing, it too is inspired by several of the misguided notions highlighted above. Nevertheless, at this point, the best option is to salvage the train wreck of the single sanction.
In an interview with the founder of Students for the Preservation of Honor, Josh Hess, he argued that our honor system "is so successful because of the powerful message sent by the single sanction" and that the "single sanction is special because it sets an inordinately high standard." He further claimed that some available evidence indicates that "multiple sanction
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 8 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.
