The honor systems at the College of William & Mary and the University have a number of similarities, including the fact that both have come under some heat during recent years for either procedural issues or unclear terminology in the bylaws. To address such concerns, William & Mary is conducting a review of its honor code and system for the first time in 13 years with the Honor System Review Committee established by College President Taylor Reveley. A comparable review board could be beneficial at the University to help the Honor Committee discuss reform more candidly, but such a committee should not be directed or implemented by administrators.
William & Mary's review committee is comprised of Student Assembly senators - similar to Student Council representatives at the University - Honor Council members and College faculty and staff members. The group will meet regularly until the end of the academic year, after which it will provide recommendations for reform to Reveley. Essentially, the review committee is a vehicle to identify weaknesses in the system and to facilitate a meaningful dialogue about the honor system among students.
Here at the University, students also could benefit from a more comprehensive look at the honor system. A formal review committee is not the only - or necessarily even the best - way to go about this, but such an approach does have its advantages. Generally speaking, Committee leadership in the past has had a difficult time moving past the initial rounds of discussion regarding most substantive changes. To be sure, the Committee has addressed a number of concerns, including some of those arising from the 2008 Semester at Sea incident, but it has also faced gridlock. This year, for instance, the Committee rightfully identified a problem regarding disengagement and perceived apathy among student jurors during honor trials. But after the initial proposal to eliminate randomly chosen student juries was tabled following community backlash, there have been few discussions about ways to move forward. Similarly, although the Committee has debated a few other more fundamental changes to the system in recent weeks, those proposals have been tabled and no meaningful plan of action as arisen.
A review committee, if given the explicit task of identifying weaknesses in the system and proposing alternatives, may be the most efficient means to move forward with changes. Unlike the William & Mary project, however, any equivalent efforts at the University ought to be student-driven and spearheaded by the Honor Committee itself. The caveat to an honor system with a single sanction is that students must buy into its ideals for it to be effective - after all, the system is not meant to be only a disciplinary framework, but rather seeks to establish community standards and affect students' ways of life. Administrative directives will not assist in this goal; students must take ownership.
Of course, perhaps the system is not in need of large-scale reform. It could be that these perceived problems are overblown and that occasional discussion is enough to gauge whether it is worth moving forward with any changes. But that seems a bit sanguine. The Committee identified at least one major issue to confront: student juror disengagement, which may signal graver problems with jury education procedures. Outside organizations, including The Cavalier Daily, have raised concerns about the intent clause being too ambiguous to serve well in its current form as a criterion for guilt.
It is our view that at least these two areas are worthy of more thorough consideration and that a review committee could be helpful in suggesting modifications. If nothing else, such an effort likely would generate more discussion among students about the ideals of honor and how they apply to the University community.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days 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 | 2 days 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 | 3 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.
