The Honor Committee revisited the Semester at Sea issue this week. At Sunday night's meeting, Committee Chair David Truetzel presented a proposal that would allow expelled Semester at Sea participants the right to request a second trial on-Grounds if found guilty of an academic honor offense during the program. The proposal would also give students found guilty aboard the program's ship the possibility of being readmitted to the University. Non-University students would be given the option to apply to the University at a later date.
The proposal will likely be discussed further and voted on by the Committee in the coming weeks. In that time, Committee members should scrutinize the proposal and rework it to account for several significant, underlying problems. In addition to creating two competing standards for communities of trust, this change would send an implicit message that Semester at Sea trials are less legitimate than the honor trials conducted on Grounds. For a matter of such importance, assenting to a weaker system is unacceptable. The proposed amendment also fails to address the crux of the 2008 Semester at Sea controversy that arose after two students were dismissed from the program because of plagiarism charges.
Currently, once a student is found guilty of an honor offense during the Semester at Sea program, he is removed from the ship and permanently dismissed from the University. Current students are expelled and cannot later apply to graduate programs; non-University students are barred from applying to any University undergraduate or graduate program.
If passed, the new proposal would give someone convicted of an academic honor offense 10 days to request new proceedings that would determine whether he would be permanently dismissed from the University, Truetzel said. Such a request would "act like a new report" and function as a new investigation, and the trial would progress "as if the alleged offense was a regular report," according to the written proposal. The spirit of the change is meant to afford members of each separate community the right to determine whether a student should stay or leave that community.
The proposal, however, gives the impression that the due process granted to students onboard the ship is not up to par with that offered to students in on-Grounds trials, a concern some Committee members voiced. By holding a second trial, some could perceive that the Committee does not "trust the people on the ship to understand" what the honor community at the University really stands for, Nursing School Representative Honour Alston said. "People doing the initial trial [on the ship] are not trained like we are," Vice Chair for Trials Alex Carroll said, in arguing for the merit of having separate trials. Although such an assessment is realistic, it points to grave flaws in the process.
The problem at hand must be addressed without compromising the integrity of the honor system. The proposal attempts to strike a balance between two absolutes. The first is to revoke the honor code entirely from Semester at Sea and use an alternate disciplinary procedure instead. The second, ideal option is to have a full-fledged, accountable system onboard that is representative of the standards of the honor system on Grounds. To concede to the middle ground in this case is a dubious approach. Permitting questionable - or at least less trusted - trials to occur under the banner of the University's honor code is inappropriate.
Furthermore, if the goal of the Committee is to avoid an incident similar to the 2008 controversy, the core of that matter must be addressed. In that situation, the problem largely originated from the honor code's unclear intent clause, not from the nature of Semester at Sea trials in general. The issue was compounded by the challenges of administering the honor code to non-University students aboard the ship, but the debate underscored a more extensive flaw in the system. The intent question will emerge again, whether it is during a Semester at Sea trial or one held on Grounds. Tackling the problem at its periphery will not resolve the controversy.
The Committee has time to evaluate and amend the proposal, and it would be wise to examine these changes in a broader context. This plan seems to dodge two major systemic issues in search of a quick fix. The Committee should embolden itself to ask the tough questions and seek more thorough solutions, not just readily accept Band-Aid proposals.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 20 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
