OH, HONOR. Apparently, there is more to it than just the Alderman mouse-pad and Stall-Seat Journal reminders of what “honor” really means. There is constant disagreement about the single sanction system under which we operate and how to make it better, with traditionalists clinging to its anachronistic nature and its virulent opponents screaming for change. As a fourth-year, I have seen the honor system operate in a continuous spin cycle for the last four years, dealing with crisis after crisis. There is always a ruling that seems stupendously wrong or just inexplicable that raises the temperatures of everyone who cares about this issue, or there is someone getting off scot-free for what would be a disciplined action at any school with a multi-sanction system. It would be nice to make our honor system less about controversy and more about meting out appropriate justice for honor violations.
Throughout history there have been systems of government and law that were either great in theory or worked for a time before reality caused them to take a turn for the worst. The Articles of Confederation was the first legal code governing this country and certainly achieved the weak central government that many Americans at that time wanted. Of course, when it became impossible to operate the country under that system, the Founding Fathers recognized the need for a change. Communism was an idealistic utopian theory that human nature proved an impossible ideal to achieve. Although these aren’t comparable in scope to the University’s honor system, like each example our institution sounds great in theory. If you cheat or lie, you have committed an affront to all students at the school and deserved to be expelled. Fourth-year Kate Vasiloff aptly describes the reality of our system: “It’s a nice ideal but unfortunately, in practice, it doesn’t work.” Controversy often reigns supreme because there are many shades of gray between the black and white that is our honor code. What is trivial and what is not? If a student lies and then admits to it a couple hours later, like in the famous case of Steve Gilday in 2006, does that student deserve to be expelled because he initially lied to his professor, even though he was found not guilty of cheating? If he had cheated, then certainly it would have made sense; however, he admitted to his dishonesty so soon after the incipient lie that Gilday’s case demanded more choices than only “to expel or not to expel.”
A serious problem for our school is the desire to strictly adhere to tradition. Many people think that it is better to stick with set institutions than seek better options even if it is clear that the conventional methods are not functioning correctly. Based on the mixed approval of the system and the troublesome nature of many of its rulings, an honor code based on the single sanction qualifies as a tradition that ought to be marked for disposal. It’s like having a justice system that either gives the death penalty or nothing at all, and with the multitude of variations that come with each unique honor case, that just can’t work. The quixotic loyalty to the single sanction many students at the University have ignores the benefits of a multi-sanction system. At William and Mary, a similarly accomplished school of academic quality and tradition, the Honor Council can dole out a wide range of punishments that better fit each crime. Unlike here, where a student can often get away with a “trivial” act of cheating because student juries cannot stomach kicking out a fellow student for failing to cite a source on a two-page paper for an ENWR class, at William and Mary the student could be given a failing grade on the assignment. If the assignment is serious enough, that student could receive a failing grade in the class for the transgression while for more significant crimes of honor that don’t quite merit expulsion, the offender could be suspended. A multi-sanction system doesn’t weaken honor; rather, it gives it teeth as students and faculty are more willing to report violations because they believe culprits will receive punishments that correspond to the seriousness of their crimes.
The honor code and the single sanction have long been tenets of the University’s tradition of high standards and commitment to academic integrity. However, as it has become evident that the system is not effective due to a low rate of reporting by students and professors and because many times the punishments are either too severe or fail to adequately address the act, the time is ripe for trying out something new and different. I support the upcoming referendum on the single sanction because it will allow for a system of multiple sanctions that will present honor juries with more options for punishment while better encouraging University members to report violations. Tradition is tried and true, but in this case, it is just tired and long overdue for change.
Geoffrey Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo 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 | 6 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 | January 13, 2025After 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.
