This editorial is part two of a two-part series. Please see yesterday's Cavalier Daily or our website for part one of the feature, which focused primarily on the 2008 Semester at Sea trials and the issue of plagiarism. This section delves into the question of intent in honor trials and especially how that clause factors into plagiarism cases.
For a student to be convicted of an honor offense, the jury or adjudicating Honor Committee members must find the student at fault for act, intent and triviality. The definition of act in the organization's bylaws is relatively straightforward, but intent and triviality can be more nebulous. The bylaws state that "'Dishonest Intent' shall mean, with respect to a particular Act, that the actor knew, or should have known, that the Act in question was or could have been considered Lying, Cheating, or Stealing. Ignorance of the scope of the Honor System shall not be considered a defense."
The intuition behind such an elastic definition is clear, and its objective appreciable. Students should not be let off the hook for lying, cheating or stealing simply because they claim ignorance of the rules. In addition to being responsible for knowing what constitutes an honor offense, students ought be expected to know that an act of willful plagiarism, for instance, is wrong and subject to sanction by the Committee. On the other hand, the "should have known" operator is not carefully worded enough to convey this message. Ideally, a better clarified intent clause would specify that "should have known" applies to the rules in question, not the act itself. Consider a student who, on her honor, is given a list of permitted sources to use for a term paper. She does not double-check the list and thus mistakenly uses a prohibited source. That is a senseless gaffe, one that probably warrants a lower grade or perhaps even a zero for the assignment. Still, it is difficult to argue that such a student was dishonest. But the less precise the intent clause is, the more leverage it gives an enterprising counsel to convince student juries that errors of fact are grounds for a conviction.
Continuing with the plagiarism example, errors in citation are one such occasion where the lines for cheating, intent and triviality become more challenging to define. Additionally, citation rules and the use of sources seem likely to vary according to circumstance. Most students would probably assume that the guidelines for citing sources are less stringent for open-note, in-class exams than for research papers, for example. Familiarity with the appropriate way to reference information is important, of course, but is a mistake along these lines justification for dismissal from the University?
Students should be aware that certain acts are wrong by definition, but if someone makes an error that borders on plagiarism without meaning deceit, should that qualify as dishonest intent? The current clause does not explicate that point sufficiently.
Families for Honor is bringing important issues to light, and for Committee Chair Charles Harris' part, he indicates that outside perspectives are welcomed by the Committee and considered useful for evaluating processes. Now is the time to follow through with that rhetoric and begin a conversation - both within the Committee and with the larger University community - about what should constitute dishonest intent for an honor offense.
Although Families for Honor and Barbara Schaedel, the organization's founder, are free to raise their concerns with University administrators - including the president and Board of Visitors - officials should not have to become involved with this issue. Rather, Harris and the Committee ought to build upon last year's moderate reforms and take on these more encompassing challenges. By doing so, they can both mitigate a systemic problem and engage the University community with the tradition of honor in a specific way that is relevant to students.
It would be a shame to miss out on that opportunity.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 15 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 | YesterdayUniversity 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.
