At its weekly meeting this past Sunday, the Honor Committee effectively killed a proposal it had been discussing since Oct. 16 to create an "informed retraction," which would have allowed a student charged with an honor offense to admit wrongdoing and accept a two-semester suspension rather than expulsion. Upon voting 19-2 to table the measure indefinitely, the Committee moved on to considering whether to seek an expansion of its jurisdiction to include cases involving the abuse of academically and athletically performance-enhancing drugs such as Adderall and anabolic steroids, respectively. Although the Committee is right to continue looking into potential reforms to its operations, an expansion of its jurisdiction would do nothing to address the underlying flaws that currently are crippling the honor system's efficacy.
The most pressing problem facing the Committee is a lack of student engagement with the honor system. According to a 2008 survey, 85 percent of students who witnessed an honor offense did not report it to the Committee. This appallingly low participation rate was primarily related to concerns about the single sanction, which deterred many students from initiating honor cases because they "did not want to be responsible for dismissing another student" or "did not think the offense was serious enough to warrant an initiation" that could only end in acquittal or expulsion. This disengagement from the honor system has persisted, as evidenced by the fact that only about 30 honor cases have been initiated since January among a student body of more than 20,000 individuals.
The attitudes captured in the 2008 survey justified the Committee's four-week focus on informed retraction, which contrary to some members' confused understanding of the plan would have squarely addressed the issue of single sanction. Although it may never be known whether informed retraction went far enough in creating a multi-tier sanctioning system since the Committee never solicited student feedback in any organized way other than through the Community Concerns portion of its weekly meetings, it was a reform that at least was oriented toward addressing one of the fundamental defects in the honor system's present structure.
The same cannot be said of the suggestion to extend the Committee's jurisdiction to drug abuse. The lack of student involvement in the honor system renders it utterly pointless to consider bringing more actions within the Committee's sphere of influence. The Committee has not demonstrated an ability to effectively police the incidents of lying, cheating and stealing that are already within its jurisdiction, and until systemic reforms are undertaken to increase the reporting of cases it is a waste of the body's time to talk about expanding its reach.
Furthermore, bringing drug abuse cases within the Committee's jurisdiction could do actual harm to the student body if the honor system remains in its current form. Since the 2008 survey and recent case load data indicate that actions deemed to be honor violations are significantly under-reported by members of the student body, it stands to reason that listing drug abuse as an honor offense would discourage students from bringing it before the proper authorities. The fear that doing so might lead to the expulsion of a peer could cause known instances of drug abuse to be covered up, which would further undermine efforts to combat the use of performance-enhancing substances and would increase the risks of student drug addiction or accidental overdose.
Therefore, the Committee should abandon its latest idea for reform and return to debating possible solutions to the core deficiencies in the honor system. To the greatest extent possible, these discussions should be made highly visible and accessible to members of the student body since it is their opinions, far more than those of the Committee members, that ultimately will determine the fate of the honor system.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 5 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.
