This morning, when the voting period for University elections opens, you will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to the Honor Committee’s constitution. The proposal, submitted by two students acting independently, attempts to lower the qualified majority needed to ratify future amendments from 60 percent to 55 percent, provided that 10 percent of the entire student body votes in the affirmative. Today, I write to respectfully urge you to vote against this amendment.
The so-called “Democratization Amendment” has been presented by its sponsors as a uniformly positive and uncontroversial change, a savvy marketing strategy that the proposal’s name reflects. I do not doubt the good intentions of its sponsors; the Honor System is imperfect and, in many ways, the Committee needs to expand its efforts to be more responsive to the opinions of the many students it represents. Portraying this proposal as a necessary remedy for an institution inherently resistant to progress, however, is not only misleading but also attempts to conceal the harmful effects the passage of this amendment would have. To foster a debate grounded in the facts, the Honor Executive Committee published an editorial that addressed certain misleading and factually incorrect claims made by the “Empowered 55” campaign. I encourage you to read it as you form an opinion on the referendum.
The “Empowered 55” campaign attempts to persuade you to vote for the amendment to “signal to the Honor Committee that the system cannot operate without listening to the multitudinous voices of the students.” While this statement captures the Committee’s most fundamental responsibility as a representative body, it dangerously misrepresents the real consequences of the amendment. Yes, the amendment would make the Honor Committee more accountable — to an even smaller percentage of the student body, enabling fewer students to push through constitutional change without the consent of nearly half of voters who participate in a referendum. Yes, the proposal reduces the barrier to amending the constitution — but in doing so it would enable the Honor System to disregard the voices of hundreds when our community considers foundational reforms, “empowering” fewer students to impose increasingly unpopular change on a larger minority of those who participate in a vote. The Honor Committee’s Constitution matters — it enumerates the Committee’s powers, sanctioning policies and our rights as students in the system. By relaxing an already low threshold for constitutional reform, this amendment threatens to make the Honor System less responsive to the multitude of student voices at this University.
The “Empowered 55” campaign — in an open letter to the student body, on its Facebook page and in an editorial — has transparently presented this proposal as a direct response to last year’s referendum on the single sanction. Citing a single, close vote on Honor’s sanctioning policies to justify a change to the constitutional amendment process is misguided and dangerous. Regardless of your opinion on the single sanction, I strongly caution against viewing the current proposal as merely a means to achieving a desired end. As an op-ed column published yesterday discusses, 59.5 percent of voting students in 2005 voted for the “Consensus Clause,” an amendment that would have required a majority of the entire student body to vote in favor of any proposed change to the Single Sanction in order to ratify it — creating an exceptionally high barrier to amending Honor’s sanctioning policies. Had the current 60 percent threshold not been in place in 2005, the sanctioning reform that our community debates today would be a near impossibility. Before you vote, I encourage you to remember the protections that responsible institutions can provide.
Finally, the “Empowered 55” campaign has publicly stated that students who choose not to support the proposal “embody the oligarchic and paternalistic tendencies that are antithetical to a democratic system.” At a time where political discourse is trending in the opposite direction, let’s remember that it remains possible to engage in spirited debate without devolving into ad hominem criticism of our peers who possess views different than our own. As you prepare to cast your ballot, be assured that a vote against the amendment is not a vote against student-self-governance. By voting “No” on the Honor referendum, you support a more responsible constitutional framework for the Honor System, one that respects and protects the votes of more students.
Beginning today, you will have the opportunity to assert your ownership of the Honor System by voting, many of you for the first time. Please take advantage of it and cast a ballot. As you prepare to do so, be assured that Honor’s current amendment process is not only fully compatible with meaningful progress, but also exists to ensure that, when we consider the most significant possible changes to Honor System, the voices — and votes — of more students matter.
Matt West is a fourth-year College student and the Chair of the Honor Committee.
Read More
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | December 8, 2024For the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
