Almost one year ago, we endorsed five candidates for College Honor representatives, basing our decisions on who most closely adhered to the ideology that Honor truly belongs to the student body.
We are now reminded of that ideal, as we examine a new Honor proposal by two support officers which could change one of most historically static features of the system — the single sanction.
In November, we wrote in support of a multiple-sanction system for Honor at the University, because it would allow for more proportional responses to certain offenses, encourage more reporting and provide opportunities for rehabilitation. A recent study conducted by the Honor Committee and the Education School seems to support our own conclusions, as out of 115 participants who witnessed an honor offense, 113 did not report them. About 35 percent of those students did not report because they feel the consequences for an Honor conviction are too harsh. To that end, we support facilitating the shift to a multiple-sanction system.
But there is more to the story here. The original version of the proposal which was briefly on the Internet on Monday had a referendum directly changing the Honor Committee’s Constitution from a single-sanction system to a multiple-sanction system. In the updated version, that referendum was replaced by a non-binding question as to whether the Committee should look into a multiple-sanction system, and a binding referendum which would require the Committee to put a multiple-sanction system to a student-wide vote in 2016, if at least 51 percent of students answer the non-binding question affirmatively.
Perhaps some thought the initial binding referendum would have been too great a change too quickly, or perhaps others were hesitant to initiate such a controversial debate following a highly tumultuous semester. As the initiative's sponsors have noted, the referenda would certainly benefit from additional student input, especially as it seeks to promote ownership over the system. But Honor has been static for too long. The most significant recent change was the passing of the Informed Retraction option two years ago, by 64 percent of the students who voted in that year’s election.
Perhaps this is why the first referendum on the proposal requires the Honor Committee to hold biannual public assemblies, and the second referendum would apply to any non-binding questions students vote on, not just this year’s question about the sanction system. These are matters of common sense for which we shouldn’t need constitutional amendments. Of course the Honor Committee — as a body of elected student leaders — should be regularly gauging student opinion and responding accordingly to it with concrete changes.
Though these two addenda seem redundant with the fundamental purpose of an elected body, they may serve as the catalyst for the change Honor so desperately needs. Almost all candidates who ran for Honor Committee in the last election were in favor of the single sanction. The ideological homogeneity of the candidate pool may deprive the student body of an opportunity to express their support for a leader who truly represents their views about Honor, and the homogeneity of the Committee itself means there is not enough debate within the body about critical issues.
All the candidates we endorsed for Honor Committee representatives in the previous election expressed a desire to make Honor in tune with the student body, but no regular formal assessment of student opinion about Honor’s policies had been implemented until last week’s survey. Discussion events like the Honor Congress are insufficient because they will only reach a limited number of students. Jaeyoon Park, one of the proposal’s authors, said, “No one currently at the University has had the opportunity to vote on the system of a single sanction.” If this system truly belongs to the entirety of the student body, it is necessary to garner opinions from that entire body, no matter how much the results may threaten tradition.
Though the degree of change this current proposal can bring has been tempered, it will, at the very least, force Honor Committee members to depart from relying on old survey data to validate their support for single sanction, and force them to be accountable to the desires of the students who elected them. Change is long overdue for Honor. The end of the single sanction is not something to fear — it would not be the end of Honor at the University. Rather, it would be a new beginning.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
