One of the most persistent criticisms that has dogged the Honor Committee is that its single sanction policy is counterproductive to upholding the ideal of a community of trust. This is no idle concern - a 2008 survey conducted by the Committee itself found that 85 percent of the respondents who had witnessed an honor offense chose not to initiate proceedings with the Committee. It is revealing that the top two reasons that respondents gave for not doing so were that they "did not want to be responsible for dismissing another student" and they "did not think the offense was serious enough to warrant an initiation." Both of these rationales can be traced to the existence of the single sanction, which precludes the Committee from taking any action apart from acquitting a student or meting out expulsion.
Attempts at reform have come and gone, but one of the ideas that has gained traction in recent years has been that of an "informed retraction." According to the general outline of this idea, students would be able to submit a written admission of guilt upon being informed that honor proceedings have been initiated against them. Subsequently, they would be suspended from the University for a specified amount of time before being given the option to rejoin the community. Honor Chair Ann Marie McKenzie introduced the most recent incarnation of this idea at last night's Committee meeting, and although it may not yet represent what is needed to improve the efficacy of the honor system, it offers an encouraging indication that the Committee understands the need for reform.
The concept of an informed retraction is certainly worth pursuing in light of the specific flaws afflicting the honor system. Given that many individuals presently are deterred from reporting honor offenses to the Committee because they believe its sanctioning policy is too draconian, offering accused students the opportunity to admit guilt and accept a reduced sanction could be a positive step toward convincing members of the University community to re-engage with the honor system. Students no longer would necessarily have to worry that by initiating honor proceedings they would bring about the expulsion of a peer since an informed retraction would allow the accused to exert a measure of control upon the severity of his sanction.
McKenzie deserves praise for recognizing these potential benefits, but her present proposal for an informed retraction may not be sufficient to bring about their realization. One important shortcoming to her legislation is that it specifies that the length of a suspension would be two full academic semesters in addition to what remains of the semester in which a student files an informed retraction. The length and inflexibility of this suspension might cause it to be seen as a de facto expulsion since students would have to wait more than a year before re-entering the University. This might give some students reason to transfer rather than accept the full length of their suspension, and it would not address the fact that no appropriate sanction exists for honor offenses that barely meet the threshold of significance.
Furthermore, the legislation proposes that students who file an informed retraction would be required to write a paper about the University's honor code upon completion of their suspension. "If we're re-entering students to the community of trust, then we want them to be educated," McKenzie explained. "We don't want them to make the same mistakes." Instead of requiring them to internalize information about the abstract ideals of the honor code, however, it might be more beneficial to mandate that students research and write about the specific offenses they committed so that they gain knowledge that will be useful both during the remainder of their time at the University and upon their graduation.
McKenzie acknowledged that her proposal merely offers a starting point from which Committee members will work in the coming weeks as they consider how best to structure an informed retraction, if indeed one is to be added to the honor system. More importantly, she noted that the Committee is "not just looking at informed retraction as a piece of legislation, but also looking at what [the Committee] can do to make itself more relevant to the student body." Although a number of other problems exist with the honor system beyond the single sanction, a well-crafted informed retraction could go a long way toward convincing the student body that the Committee remains attuned to its concerns.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 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 | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
