Lie, cheat or steal and face the single sanction: expulsion. Some students think it is a brutal concept, while others have said instituting a uniform punishment that eliminates bias is ideal for the community of trust. Tonight, students will have the opportunity to voice their opinions about the issue at an open forum hosted by the Single Sanction Ad-Hoc Committee.
The committee hopes to create a dialogue between the Honor Committee and the student body, committee chair Adam Trusner said. The committee is composed not only of Honor Committee members but also of members from the Minority Rights Coalition and Hoos against Single Sanction. The committee holds closed sessions as well as open forums during which students are invited to share their thoughts about the single sanction.
At last week’s ad-hoc committee meeting, committee member Sam Leven, president of Hoos Against Single Sanction, presented a proposal that offered alternatives to the single sanction. Leven said that under the terms of this proposal, a student who is found guilty of act and intent but acquitted of non-triviality would be punished with a lesser sanction by the Honor Committee. According to Leven’s proposal, if a student is found guilty of act, intent and non-triviality he or she would still be expelled from the University.
Leven said he believes the proposal addresses several problems with the current system.
“It separates out expulsion as the default penalty,” Leven said. In addition to providing alternatives to the single sanction, Leven said the proposal narrows the gap between punishments.
“Students who get off with nothing wouldn’t get off with nothing,” Leven said. “Expulsion versus nothing or expulsion versus a two-year suspension. The latter is better.”
Trusner said he felt Leven’s proposal draws the line at triviality, and triviality may not always be the deciding factor in convicting or acquitting a student. If a student were accused of plagiarizing 1,000 words from a 1,500-word paper, the student could be found guilty or acquitted depending on the jury that tried the accused, Trusner said. It could never be known, however, whether the jury made its verdict based on triviality or intent, he said.
School of Medicine Rep. Will Derry echoed Trusner’s concerns.
“We would run into the same problems that we run into now in terms of randomness,” Derry said. “When juries are voting on non-triviality, randomness applies there. One jury can vote ‘yes,’ another vote ‘no.’”
Trusner also raised another concern: The proposal could lead to a problem with impartiality because Honor Committee members — rather than a randomly selected jury — would determine the punishment.
Leven, however, said he believes the issue of impartiality will not pose a problem when Honor Committee members sanction a student.
“I’ve never seen anything in the U.S. judicial system to make me think that that’s a problem,” Leven said. “I don’t think you lose your impartiality that you’re ultimately going to have to decide punishment. That’s how it works in the U.S. judicial system; judges remain impartial.”
Leven proposed a measure two years ago that would have completely eliminated the single sanction in addition to non-triviality and intent, he said. The jury would have chosen a punishment from a list of several sanctions. Nearly 6,500 students voted on the referendum, and it failed to reach a simple majority by 62 votes during spring 2007 elections.
When creating the new proposal, Leven said he wanted to “work within the bounds of the current system.” He also said students were uncomfortable with the idea of juries choosing a student’s sanction because juries do not sit on multiple cases; this was a reason why he decided to amend the proposal so that Honor Committee members would sanction the students. He also added that students felt the referendum two years ago “demeaned the system” — something the new proposal would not do.
“It would leave the constitution largely intact as it is now, which would leave the framework for fixing problems,” Leven said. “We’re working within the current framework.”
First-year College student Aaron Ross said he supports the idea of looking into alternatives for the single sanction. While Ross said he believes a one-sanction system creates a uniform and concrete standard when convicting students, he believes the punishment is somewhat harsh.
“The fact that you can’t get kicked out of the University for sexual assault but you can get kicked out for cheating on a test is a little bit ridiculous to me,” he said.
He added that he believes the single sanction deters students from reporting honor offenses.
“There have probably been times when I should have said something but I didn’t just because of that,” Ross said.
Second-year College student Reginald Benbow, Jr. said while he likes the idea of exploring alternatives to the single sanction, the current system still remains an effective way of eliminating partiality.
“Everyone — if they lie, cheat, or steal — gets the same punishment,” Benbow said. “There’s no room for bias if the Committee had a gender or racial bias in terms of sanctioning.”
Leven plans to present his proposal formally at tonight’s open forum meeting at 7 in the Chemistry Building auditorium.
Read More
U.Va. sees 11 percent increase in early decision applications for Class of 2029
By Sophie Long | 5 days agoThe early decision application process is a binding agreement designed for students who have chosen the University as their top choice.
Corner businesses carry on through winter break despite few students on Grounds
By Nina Broderick | 6 days agoNot only are students customers of these businesses, but they are also employees.
Winter storm warning in effect for Charlottesville starting Sunday evening
By Cecilia Mould | January 5, 2025Reports from the National Weather Service predict that Charlottesville will experience snow, sleet and freezing rain beginning Sunday afternoon and lasting through Monday.
