Jonathan Haidt
Associate Professor of Psychology
One of the oldest principles of moral psychology is that habit builds character. If you can get people to do honorable things, they will become honorable people. Jefferson himself wrote that the moral sense “may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body.” So the community of trust that U.Va. students have created for themselves is a wise and wonderful thing.
But the Honor System in its present form violates two other principles of moral psychology, thereby undermining its effectiveness. The first is that the certainty of punishment is a much more powerful deterrent than is the severity of punishment. At U.Va., however, we get it backward: cheating is almost always tolerated, and on rare occasions it is punished severely. The second principle is the principle of justice, which says, “Treat like cases alike and different cases differently.” But the single sanction requires us all to violate the principle of justice. The single sanction is a deliberate policy of treating all cases alike, and most cases more harshly than we think is right.
As a social psychologist, it seems clear to me that the single sanction is an obstacle to honor at U.Va. It contributes to widespread toleration of dishonor, and to dishonorable behavior at trial. Yet in my talks with those who defend the single sanction, I have come also to see how much it inspires many students.
So is there a way to keep the single sanction, yet get it in harmony with basic principles of moral psychology? Yes. We can add a “forgiveness” clause to the single sanction. Any student caught cheating is expelled (we still have just one sanction), but the expulsion need not be permanent. The Honor Committee can draft procedures by which expelled students can apply (once) for forgiveness and readmission.
This change would have a ripple effect throughout the system: more students would stand up after being caught and admit that they cheated, reducing the percentage of cases that go to trial, and reducing the desperate lies told at trial. More faculty would therefore initiate cases. The whole process would feel more humane and just, which would encourage more students and faculty to initiate cases. And best of all, forgiveness is an inspiring change, one that feels like moral progress rather than like an admission of failure. In fact, forgiveness satisfies the very logic that is already built into the Honor System in the seriousness clause, which asks: If a behavior were to become widespread, would it undermine the community of trust? If so, then it is serious. Well, what about forgiveness? If forgiveness were to become widespread at U.Va., would it undermine our community of trust? No. It would strengthen it. It would be exactly the sort of moral “exercise” that Jefferson wanted us to have.
(Adapted with permission from a commentary first published Nov. 30, 2004, in the Cavalier Daily.)
Thomas B.W. Hall
Col ’02, Law ’06; Honor Committee Chairman, 2000-2002
The problems faced by the Honor System defy simple solutions. It is tempting for would-be reformers to propose the elimination of the single sanction as the cure for the system’s problems. However, many of the system’s ailments will not necessarily be remedied by such a change; students will still be reluctant to initiate cases against their peers (as demonstrated by our experience with the University Judiciary Committee) and faculty will still be frustrated with inconsistent verdicts and lengthy procedures.
What should be done? First, we should amend the Honor Committee constitution to eliminate the possibility of “non-serious” academic cheating. The University is an academic institution, and we should not tolerate any behavior that subverts that mission. This change would eliminate one of the principal faculty complaints about the system.
Second, the Board of Visitors and administration should take more seriously their stated commitment to the Honor System. The board’s manual ranks maintenance of the Honor System as one of its highest priorities, but that priority has not trickled down to the faculty. Students clearly must do more to maintain the system by reporting dishonorable acts, but the reality of the modern University is that faculty and teaching assistants are best positioned to detect academic dishonesty. The University needs to enforce those portions of faculty contracts that require support of the Honor System and end the continual circumvention of the formal process of the system.
Students and faculty must work together to strengthen our Honor System, but we cannot forget that our system is a student one. Students make the rules and should play a significant role in enforcing them, but we cannot do it without the help of our faculty. That means reporting cases to the Honor Committee, working to improve the processes by which those cases are adjudicated, and not opting out of the system.
Leigh B. Middleditch Jr.
Col ’51, Law ’57
For alumni of my generation, the Honor System was one of the essential components of our education. Before the courts and law students became involved, procedures were simple and quick in operation. One of the abiding principles was that it was an honor offense not to turn a student in who was an alleged violator. Also, the giving of one’s word was sacrosanct.
Since graduating, I have personally observed that vestiges of the Honor System have continued; in particular, the word of one alumnus to another remains important to many alumni relationships.
Unless there are changes to the current system, or drastic societal changes involving morality, it is unlikely that honor will continue to be viable as an integral part of undergraduate education at the University. In my opinion, survival is dependent on intense leadership by the Board of Visitors, the president, deans and faculty to cause “integrity” (the current honor colloquialism) to be taught, on a mandatory basis, throughout the undergraduate years.
The various defenses available to an accused student which permit avoidance of the single sanction (e.g., the seriousness clause) merely provide an opportunity for jury nullification of offenses which otherwise would result in a guilty verdict. If the single sanction continues to deter students from turning in alleged violators, there has to be an adjustment. I have unsuccessfully suggested to the Honor Committee to cause a referendum on the deletion of “permanently” expelled from the Honor Constitution. While this may not alone increase the student body’s responsibility in turning their fellows in, at least it would provide an Honor Committee the opportunity to consider applications for readmission.
Jennifer Allen
Col ’06; Lawn resident
We should be careful not to conflate resistance to the single sanction with a deterioration of honor at the University. Avoiding the handicap of blind commitment to tradition, we recognize that the Honor System is simply changing, much in the way it has several times in the past. Students are acknowledging that the honor code’s aim is not to purge the student body of those who lie, cheat, or steal; rather, to engender in students a value for honorable conduct. The integrity of the system exists not so much in the actual process as in the interest of the student body to hold their peers accountable for their actions.
Student self-governance should take the fore. Students must take full charge of holding each other answerable for their misconduct. Taking our cue from decreased student participation, we cannot ignore that the system needs restructuring and that such a restructuring must be initiated and carried out by us, not administrators or alumni.
As the $30,000-plus price tag leaves students more conscious of the challenges to obtaining a college education, the manner by which they wish to promote honor among their peers (putting another student’s degree in question) is shifting as well. Students should focus on finding new ways in which we might hold our peers accountable for the same infractions, not how we can forcibly maintain the tired status quo, single sanction and all.
Arantxa Ascunce
Grad ’02; Ph.D. candidate in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese
As a graduate student who has independently taught more than 600 students at U.Va., I have had my share of run-ins with the honor code. Whenever I have been confronted with a violation, I ask myself, “Who am I to meddle with anybody else’s destiny?” As an individual, I do not feel I have that right. Yet, as a U.Va. student I have that obligation; thus my discontent, because the code asks me to do something with which I morally disagree.
As a Raven, Range resident, in-residence director of the Casa Bolivar, Faculty-Senate Dissertation Fellowship recipient, Fulbright Fellow—amongst other achievements and contributions to my school and department—I am most proud of U.Va.’s tradition of student self-governance. The goal of this activism is, in essence, to do away with bad traditions and create new and more honorable ones.
Recent statistics inform us that the majority of U.Va. students elude the code. I am certain that many of these students are honorable individuals. My suggestion for restoring honor is to first decide what honor really means, and then to determine whether the code really helps us achieve that goal. Then, if there is to be a major change, the dissenting majority must consolidate and demonstrate its discontent in true Cavalier fashion.
Patricia H. Werhane
Ruffin Professor of Business Ethics, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration
The focus of the Honor System is on students and student behavior, and the admonition not to lie, steal or cheat is obviously critical to create a community of trust that continues long after one graduates. But if this is critical to the University and the moral future of this country, should we not extend and enlarge this community of trust?
Recently, commissioned by President John T. Casteen III, a group of senior faculty, administrators, staff and students gathered to think broadly about honor and integrity. [Editor’s note: Ms. Werhane chaired the panel.] They developed the notion of “envisioning integrity throughout the University.” The aim was not to replace or displace the student-run Honor System, but rather to develop the theme of integrity as part of the mission of the University: its faculty, staff and administrators; undergraduate, graduate and professional students; parents and alumni.
The mission of this endeavor was to create a University community of trust and honor that would extend far beyond the bounds of the student-run Honor System. The philosophy was—and is—that integrity and honor are part of all that we do, thus integrity should embed all our relationships: our personal, social, religious, academic and professional activities. The University could be a model for creating a community of integrity and trust “all the way through” all that we do and strive to be.
Through the University-wide Institute for Practical Ethics, courses and programs would be developed with the themes of ethics and integrity. Training would be conducted for faculty, graduate assistants, researchers and, yes, staff and administration, on the importance of the complete academic life of integrity. Parents and alumni would be brought into the project as mentors and thought leaders.
The Envision Integrity Project is still in an embryonic stage. Yet its idea—that integrity, trust, honor and ethics are part of all aspects of our lives, not just as students, and not just in the classroom—is an idea that is worth considering in the forefront of our thinking as students contemplate, again, the viability and structure of the University of Virginia’s Honor System.
Comments
There are no comments for this article yet. Begin the discussion below!
Leave a Comment