I have looked into the eyes of a student who has just been expelled for an honor offense. I have lost a lot of sleep creating the best possible defenses for students at honor trials. These and other experiences have led me to believe there is a better way than expelling students haphazardly for breaking the trust of our student body by lying, cheating or stealing. In order to fix the system, I encourage students to vote for Option 2 in the upcoming Honor referendum.
What is Option 1?
A vote for Option 1 is a vote for the status quo, one that harshly punishes a few students in order for a small number of students to maintain a false ideal. Honor is our ideal, not the single sanction.
What is Option 2?
Option 2 would add the following underlined words to the portion of the Honor Committee’s constitution relevant to sanctioning (emphasis added).
“The Honor Committee shall have the power to exclude permanently from student status or impose lesser sanctions to University students found to have committed Honor violations.”
Option 2 would allow — but not require — the Honor Committee to implement a multiple sanction system. If passed, the Honor Committee will survey the student body on their opinions of the system and shift toward a multiple sanction system.
Why should you vote Option 2?
Real students are affected by the single sanction policy. Instead of merely seeking to deter students from committing an honor offense, the single sanction punishes students to the fullest extent possible. It allows for no gray areas and fewer second chances. If they are international students, they might lose their visas. If they are fourth-years, they might lose their jobs. Regardless of their specific statuses, they will lose their opportunity to go to school here. We should have more opportunities to learn from mistakes and remain a part of the community, not less.
You should vote for Option 2 because the Informed Retraction, or IR, is flawed. The IR allows students, upon being notified of having been reported of an honor offense, to voluntarily accept a year-long suspension rather than go to trial and face the possibility of the single sanction. However, this policy leaves problems unsolved both before and after the choice of whether to take it. Before taking the IR, we are left with the problem of having students who genuinely believe they are innocent but consider taking the IR (and its associated suspension) for fear of expulsion. Additionally, for those students who genuinely believe they are innocent or accidentally violated a rule, there are no alternatives to separation from the University. We should seek to integrate students into our community of trust, not to separate them from it.
You should vote for Option 2 because you believe in free and open debate. Option 2 does not take away the Honor Committee’s power to expel students or to keep expulsion as the only possible punishment for students at trial. What Option 2 does allow is for our elected representatives to innovate on our behalf to create a system we can believe in, one that treats all students fairly. Even if you are a believer in the single sanction, you should vote for Option 2 and defend your view among a range of other possible options instead of formally restricting the option set by means of the Honor Committee Constitution.
I urge you to vote tomorrow at uvavote.com. I will be voting for Option 2 for these reasons, for those described in these two previous articles (by the editorial board, by Eric MacBlane), and for reasons mentioned at voteoptiontwo.com. Your vote is critically important to the future of our honor system, and I encourage you to learn more and participate.
Michael White is a fourth-year Commerce student and an Honor senior support officer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Elect Honor representatives committed to transparency
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoEach candidate has looked to the past to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Honor system and has also exhibited forward-thinking solutions to the Committee’s present challenges.
EDITORIAL: Choose UJC representatives who believe in internal reform
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAll four of these candidates articulated innovative and practical ideas to better promote the internal sustainability of UJC.
EDITORIAL: Elect Student Council representatives that advocate for students
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoFurthermore, each of these candidates passionately established their focus on the protection of student resources through bargaining with administration.
