The results of a survey the Honor Committee conducted were released Sunday night. It was the body’s first University-wide study since 2008 and solicited double the amount of responses. Though the 2008 survey featured a more comprehensive bevy of questions — including those about readership for The Cavalier Daily — the most recent iteration is a useful endeavor for the nature of feedback it furnished. Distinct questions about how students feel about the Committee, and how they would use it, show a fundamental chasm between the theory and practice of honor, especially regarding the policy of single sanction.
Out of the 1,700 undergraduate and graduate students sampled through email, 1,250 responded. This nearly 75 percent response rate is already a preliminary indication that students are committed enough to the honor system to respond to a series of questions. Moreover, in addition to the historically popular inquiries, the survey also asked a series of targeted questions about informed retraction legislation that will give the Committee a better pulse on the subject should it come up again for a vote.
Now to the answers themselves. The survey opened by asking how students felt about honor. A fairly high number, 73.8 percent, said they felt very positive or somewhat positive about the honor system, as opposed to 79 percent in 2008. This year, 68.4 percent of students felt very or somewhat informed about the Committee’s procedure in handling honor offenses. This is a marked contrast to the 49.7 percent of students who felt equally informed in 2008, though the disparity may not be as large as it seems because that survey had four instead of three options.
A later question in the survey asked how students “feel” about single sanction. Answers indicate that about 60 percent of students “support” the single sanction. But about 45 percent of that 60 supports the sanction “with some reservations.” Again, by having so few options — “Fully support,” “Support with some reservations,” “Do not support” and “other” – the Committee gave a disproportionate space to answers that supported the sanction. It seems asymmetric that students could support the sanction with qualifications but only disapprove it entirely.
The most important question gauged whether students would file an honor charge with the Committee. Here the discrepancy lies: though nearly three-quarters of students felt positive about the honor system, only 40 percent of them would actually report an offense. The factor most accounting for this hesitancy was the belief that an offense is too trivial, which 1,142 of 1,250 respondents said might stop them from beginning a case. Additionally, 1,039 respondents balked at the notion of expulsion as punishment and said this would discourage them from starting a case. Yet, to this same question, only 398 students said they did not believe in single sanction and that it would keep them from filing charges.
To expel someone from the University is what the single sanction entails. The responders did not seem to realize that if you are uneasy about expulsion, then neither should you have reason to believe or support single sanction.
There is thus a disconnect between students feeling supportive of single sanction and being against expulsion in practice. The Committee should ignore how students feel about single sanction and note how the threat of expulsion deters student participation. If the idea of expulsion prevent such a majority of students from turning someone in, then it is not a feasible policy.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 16 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 | 4 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.
