When reading their letters to the editor, I really have to wonder if Blaire Hawkins ("Upholding honor," Nov. 11) and Brian O'Neill ("Undue criticism," Nov. 11) worked for the same Honor System that I have the past six years. They both speak in such flowery approval of the current intent clause and plagiarism definitions, yet should be well aware that the realities on the ground are quite different. The Cavalier Daily has been spot on in its criticisms, and should continue to push for reform.
Ms. Hawkins speaks of this "reasonable U.Va. student" standard in the intent clause that may sound nice, yet is precariously absent from the actual intent clause. I have never seen any sign that this is the standard juries actually use. Instead, we're stuck with the "should have known" language. At its core, there's nothing wrong with saying a student has dishonest intent if they "should have known" what they did was an Honor offense (consider when a mother tells a child you "should have known better," it's about the same). The problem is that the standard is frequently misused. Far too often, juries think "should have known" not only means a student "should have known" their actions were an Honor offense, but also that the student "should have known" he or she had taken the action to begin with. This clause was not meant to impute guilty knowledge on students when it was written, yet this is how it is frequently used both by juries and counsel for the community. This is how we end up expelling students whose only real crime was failing to proofread their papers. A foolish thing to do, yes, but dishonorable conduct? I think not. A simple reform could fix this problem while still ensuring that students cannot shirk their responsibilities by claiming they didn't know the rules when they clearly should have, but to pretend there is no problem is just plain wrong.
As for Mr. O'Neill's letter, he ignores the problem and primarily moves to attack Prof. Alan Briceland himself. While Prof. Briceland's years of experience should speak for themselves, Mr. O'Neill seems to ignore that Prof. Briceland, and many others in academia, have been raising this issue with plagiarism at schools with far less strict honor codes than ours as well. This is a problem across academia and not nearly limited to this school. Consider this. If you're in class, given an open book exam with a time limit, and you copy something from the textbook, is that plagiarism? Most of us would say no, but I know some professors who would say yes. What if there isn't a time limit; is it plagiarism then? What about if it's a take home test, but again with a time limit? What about if you're allowed to use any source you find, but again, you have a time limit? What about if it's open notes, and some of your notes were made at a meeting with a fellow student?
The answers to these questions aren't simple, and the new proposed guideline for plagiarism will address many of these questions. For Mr. O'Neill to pretend that this isn't a nationwide issue and that Briceland is somehow attacking us alone simply ignores Briceland's actual point, which is a valid one.
Intent and plagiarism cases are very different "on the ground" in the Honor System than the idealistic way they are stated by Ms. Hawkins and Mr. O'Neill. I would hope that the current Committee will keep that in mind as it moves forward on both.
Sam Leven\nLAW III
Read More
UNIVERSITY GUIDES LEADERSHIP: We stand behind our commitment to sharing history
By Davis Taliaferro , Jack Giese and Ella Sher | 2 hours agoWe are announcing our return to giving historical tours independent of the University administration.
EDITORIAL: Repressive classroom agendas cost students their education
By Editorial Board | YesterdayReligiously-oriented education is one of the most obvious manifestations of this regional specificity and one of the greatest drivers of censorship.
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | November 24, 2024Youngkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
