On January 21, the Honor Committee endorsed a proposal to make two key changes to the Honor System. Students will vote on the committee’s proposal February 25-28. The committee believes its proposal—which introduces Informed Retraction and changing the composition of juries at Honor trials—will address many of the Honor System’s problems and ultimately restore the system as an integral part of the student experience.
Here, we look at some of the ways that the Honor System has evolved over the years, challenges to the system as reflected in recent surveys gauging student and faculty attitudes about Honor, the proposal’s details and the Honor Committee’s rationale for proposing change.
1. Challenges and changes
The high standards that the Honor System demands of students at U.Va. and the way the system itself functions have long been a topic of heated conversation and debate. Students are charged not only with the responsibility of governing and administering the Honor System, but also with ensuring that the principles of Honor are central to student life at the University of Virginia.
Editors of the Cavalier Daily provide examples of the lengthy history of conversation about the vitality and viability of the Honor System, writing in 1958, “Is honor at Virginia a reality or is the Honor System a great hollow shell …?” In 1967, another Cavalier Daily editorial stated, “We do not know whether the spirit [of honor] can thrive in the University of tomorrow, so large and so diverse and so wrapped up in the exigencies of the modern world.”
2. Problems Persist
A half-century later, the University community is still asking many of those same questions and raising similar concerns. A 2001 Honor System Review Commission composed of students, faculty, administrators, Board of Visitors members and others concluded, “We do not think all is well with the Honor System. We agree with many in the community that the system is in grave danger and that without substantial reform it may succumb in the relatively near future to pressure external, internal, or both.
“We believe very strongly that students can be trusted to run a vital university system that is both aspirational and disciplinary. But we have concluded that many of the changes of the last 20 to 30 years have had the effect of loosening student accountability and have undercut the willingness of the students collectively to take charge of the system.”
3. The current state of Honor
Honor Survey Results
More than a decade after the Review Commission report, the Honor System still appears threatened by the same challenges identified in 2001. Surveys of students and faculty in 2012 highlight some of the primary problems with the system:
74% of students feel positively about the Honor System, but 63% are hesitant to report violations, citing uneasiness with the single sanction.
42% of students say that they would report on Honor offense, but of those who think they actually witnessed an Honor offense, only 5% said that they reported it.
38% of faculty strongly support the Honor System. Another 35% support it, but with reservations.
80% of faculty feel cheating was very uncommon or uncommon in their own classes, but that opinion drops to 56% of faculty when considering cheating at the University as a whole.
After faculty members refer a case to the Honor System, only 20% still strongly support the system.
4. The committee's proposal
Infographic
Follow two students as they go through both the existing and proposed Honor systems. Their journey illustrates the current problems and helps explain why the committee believes its proposal could strengthen the system.
Recent survey results seem to clearly indicate that the Honor System at the University faces significant challenges. The Honor Committee believes its proposal will address the key issues that have created dysfunction within the system, thus alleviating many student and faculty concerns.
The first part of the committee’s proposal introduces Informed Retraction, which builds upon the Honor System’s existing Conscientious Retraction policy. Currently, Conscientious Retraction provides the opportunity for students to come forward before they are aware that they are suspected of committing an Honor offense, admit to the act, make amends and remain a member of the Community of Trust.
The proposed addition of Informed Retraction extends the opportunity for students to come forward immediately after they are made aware that an Honor report has been filed against them. The committee explains that this allows a student to take responsibility for his or her actions by admitting to the act, making amends with the Community of Trust, and leaving the University for two full academic semesters. A student would only be allowed to file an Informed Retraction once. While a student is away from the University, his or her transcript would read “Honor Leave of Absence.” The notation would be removed after a year, regardless of whether a student opts to return to U.Va.
The second component of the proposal replaces randomly selected student juries with juries composed exclusively of elected Honor Committee representatives. “No other adjudicating body at the University uses random students as a jury panel, but instead utilizes formally trained student representatives as the most effective panel to fairly adjudicate matters and pursue the truth,” the committee states.
5. What does this mean for the single sanction?
The Honor Committee “supports the single sanction and feels strongly that its proposal in no way changes the system’s policy of having only one sanction for students found guilty of an Honor offense. Accordingly, the committee notes that the constitutional language protecting that aspect of the Honor System is unaltered with this proposal.”
“Since the inception of the Conscientious Retraction, the Honor System has long recognized that a student can behave in a way that reaffirms his or her place in our Community of Trust after committing an act of lying, cheating, or stealing,” the Honor Committee states. “The single sanction still exists now, and will continue to do so with this proposal, as the sole consequence for an individual found guilty of committing an Honor offense at a trial.”
6. Significant changes in the last four decades
Retrace the history of the Honor System in this 2008 Virginia Magazine article, "The Evolution of Honor."
As the University and its students have changed over the years, the Honor System has consistently evolved to keep pace. The current Honor Committee believes that some of the changes have strengthened the system, while others seem to have eroded its effectiveness.
1970s: The Honor Committee is unsure of exactly when Conscientious Retraction (admitting to an Honor offense before any awareness of suspicion by another U.Va. community member) was introduced, but knows that it has been part of the system since the 1970s.
1980: Accused students have the option to choose a jury composed of both randomly selected peers and members of the Honor Committee. Ten years later, another referendum allows students to opt for a jury composed entirely of randomly selected peers.
1987: The Honor Committee creates a panel of student investigators to help prepare facts for trials. By 1993, randomly selected investigators are replaced with trained support officers.
Today: The Honor Committee’s new proposal seeks to reverse the change to jury composition introduced in 1990 and, with the addition of Informed Retraction, expand the time frame for admission of wrongdoing that has been provided by Conscientious Retraction since the 1970s.
7. An evolving system, constant principles
For more than 170 years the Honor System has served three fundamental purposes at the University.
The system’s core principles are:
- Foster a community of trust
- Pursue truth in an academic setting
- Promote student self-governance
Although the system has undergone numerous changes and endured bumps in the road as the system has evolved and student attitudes have changed over the years, these principles have remained at the heart of the Honor System.
The Honor Committee hopes that its current proposal will allow it to more actively focus on strengthening these three principles among the larger student body by solving the persistent procedural issues that have weakened the Honor System over time.
“The Honor Committee has been encouraged by the widespread and enthusiastic support we have received so far from many University stakeholders,” Stephen Nash (Col '13), chair of the Honor Committee, says of conversations leading up to today's announcement. “Support officers, who work hard to administer our system each and every day, have expressed confidence that this proposal can serve as a comprehensive solution to fix the serious internal problems we too often encounter. Faculty and administrators have been excited for this proposal's potential to provide a system that would be most effectively administered and could lead to a reinvigorated spirit of Honor within student life. Additionally, many students we have spoken with also see this proposal as an opportunity to recommit to Honor by addressing these serious problems and bridging the current divide between positive support of the ideal and the lack of confidence with the current procedures.”
8. Why the Honor Committee believes its proposal will help
The committee states:
“This proposal aims to comprehensively address internal dysfunction within the Honor System that is weakening the culture of Honor at the University, while ensuring that a single sanction remains in place. There are two primary problems within the Honor System that combine to create this dysfunction. The first problem is that the current system incentivizes student dishonesty throughout the Honor process because a student who dishonestly participates has a better chance of receiving a not-guilty verdict than a student who proceeds honestly through the investigation and trial process.
“This is compounded by the second problem of randomly selected jury panels. Often uncomfortable with the Honor System’s standards and bylaws, random students inconsistently determine standards such as “reasonable doubt” and often deliver not-guilty verdicts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
“The components in this proposal are contingent on each other. We believe that each independently would not be sufficient in addressing the current problems.
“In short, this proposal seeks to fix the Honor System’s internal dysfunction by re-aligning it with the positive ideals of the system and protecting its critical character—a single sanction for those found guilty at trial, student self-governance, and strong community support.”
In addition to the comments section of this website, the Alumni Forum provides a place for discussion of issues related to U.Va.
Additional reader discussion can be found on this related article and infographic about the proposed changes to the System.
Comments
Seems to be the right kind of change, that strengthens the system and promotes adherence to Honor while acknowledging the realities associated with a student-run Honor System. I think today's students are largely too busy to want to participate deeply in Honor's operation (e.g., as jurors) and live in a culture that will not support -- as it largely did in my time -- turning in suspected violators. The current proposal seems to address both of these cultural changes.
I believe that the proposal to allow for 1 year of leave is a good one, but the elected honor judges will likely increase the rate of wrongful expulsions. It will do this for two reasons. First, it will flood the jury with students of the same mindset. It takes a certain type of person to run in a student election and commit the massive amount of time required to sit on multiple honor juries. By making these positions elected, you codify the biases present in the election system itself. Second, it doesn't relieve the issue of ignorance that was previously the root cause of many of the jury issues. Jury members, without training and without clear evidence, were generally confused about the expectations put before them. Now with proper training, the juries will be very adept at reviewing cases, but will still see the same incomplete information. I suspect that Engineers will still be kicked out, not for being dishonest or breaking rules, but because jurors don't understand how teamwork and study groups function in the engineering school. The only way honor can work is the student has a majority of representatives from his or her school on the jury that bring with them the understanding and specific cultural norms that the student was working under at the time of the incident.
Thanks for the information. Have there been any students expelled for lying during the investigation even though their lying may have prevented them from being expelled for the offense? Lying can often be exposed with a good investigation. Nothing here is mentioned about strengthening the investigation process. Tell us more about that component. And lastly, a funny story. A classmate and I are visiting another school when a fan belt breaks on his Volvo P1800 sports car. The belt was not readily available and the mechanic worked hard to find one to fit. The installation was very costly. We did not have the cash or a credit card to cover the repair. So, in a very rural area at a very late hour, my classmate says, "We are students of the University and I'm sure you heard of our honor system. On my honor, I will send you the money immediately upon our return and the bank opening." The mechanic looked at us and said, "We have a honor system here also. He drives a big car with a badge on the side of it." We left a set of golf clubs as collateral and returned the next week to exchange.
I believe this is exactly WHY we have juries - one should no expel a student when there is doubt about their guilt. The power to decide when there is "overwhelming evidence" lies with a jury, not the Honor Committee. It sounds like the Honor Committee has their own ideas about evidence, guilt, and punishment which aren't in line with the rest of the community. They have resolutely defended the single sanction for years even as the rest of the community has found it restrictive. And when students are hesitant to use it, this is their response? To eliminate randomly selected juries and replace them with judges from the honor committee? This is why we have juries - so that the people have the power to decide who is innocent and who is guilty, not the court. It exists because a randomly selected jury gives the people direct access to the law. The type of people who run for honor committee believe strongly in single sanction. As James said, it will also reduce the diversity of personality types and opinions.
I am puzzled. The Honor System seemed to work when I was a student in the '60's. But then, we were not as smart, I am told, as students of today. Dumb as we were, we were still able to comprehend and deal with the single sanction and graduate in reasonable numbers. Perhaps smarter and honorable do not go hand in hand. Not like smart and hard work do, anyhow. I do not accept the argument that the problem is the Honor System. I will accept an argument that todays students and faculty are more lazy and less motivated by honor than those who passed before them. Perhaps the University should make a bigger deal of the Honor System before a student is admitted. Those students that do not display a working knowledge and acceptance of the System in advance do not get admitted. Likely to happen? Of course not! How freak'n difficult can honor be when all you have to do is - the right thing? So I'm now asking myself - does the University and its students really want honor - or just the appearance of honor? Let me know when you figure that out. Meantime, my checkbook is closed. It's the checkbooks fault, you know. Not mine.
If so many students who witness an honor offense do not report it, then what are they doing at my University. Did they not sign the Honor Card at their initial meeting? For me, sadly, the Honor System seems to be dead and hypocritic, may I say dishonorable people have taken control of it. Change the name. This is not my UVa's Honor Sytem, the greatest gift UVa gave me for which I am infinitely thankful. A very sad alumnus.
This proposal undermines the entire Honor system. The number of trials will decrease significantly as more students cash in this new "Get out of jail free" card. Might as well dissolve the whole thing. Hopefully the students are wise enough to reject it.
The Honor System has served The University well for centuries and continues to distinguish it from both State U. and the NE Ivies. Moreover, graduates who are committed to living honorably are a blessing on Nation. The fact that the student body is no longer the exclusive domain of "gentlemen" and that society has devolved during that period is no reason for change ion standards of behavior at Mr. Jefferson's University. A for the makeup of juries, standard of proof and other peripheral issues, let the students decide.
I'm inclined favorably toward the committee's recommendations although I do like the idea of peer juries. I wonder if a better process of orientation to the duty of serving as a juror, once selected, could address the concerns with the randomly selected peer juries? What about one Honor Committee member plus random peers as members of the jury?
As a married student living in Charlottesville full time and student AIA president (an elected position within the School of Architecture), I was often asked to sit on the Honor Committee when our School President or Vice-President was unable to do so. During my time at Virginia the Honor Committee was composed of school presidents or other elected school officers and the Committee as a whole ran trials and rendered decisions. Juries separate from the Committee did not exist. That system seemed to work well enough but the size of the University was much smaller than it is today. Does size actually matter? It may if the number of reported Honor offenses has grown proportionately with the growth of the student population. In my estimation that would be the only reason to have a pool of jurors willing and able to render verdicts at the conclusion of an Honor Trial. Were the pool large enough to allow respite for those participating in this process so as not to tie up in trials the same jurors for days and perhaps weeks on end, then a jury system would make sense to me. As to the single sanction, I still favor it. Levels of dishonesty as well as levels of pregnancy do not exist. Either one was dishonest or not. Nonetheless, I do think that Informed Retraction and Conscientious Retraction have a place in the Honor process. I recall an A-School classmate asking questions about a take-home exam for a course in the College who was (correctly) asked to leave the University for cheating. The sad truth is, however, that this student had been awake for at least five days straight and simply was not thinking clearly about anything. An opportunity to set things straight for this student would have been the more appropriate course of action.
It is very disheartening to see the University once again attempting to devalue the meaning of "Honor." The single-sanction Honor System is integral to the existence of the University - not to mention a source of pride. The Honor System is well known and not sprung on unware students. If students - or faculty - have a problem with it, they can go elsewhere. No one forces them to come here! I believe that this is yet another symptom of the University becoming too large and a decline in standards. This is a very sad day for Mr. Jefferson's Academical Village.
They should consolidate the comments from this and the info graphic. Michael Lawler had a great post on that page. I find the whole discussion alarming and saddening. I can't speak to the actual process and jury composition, but I have very strong feelings on single sanction. Making the system more flexible will not improve honor, or make it more "significant in the lives of students." The honor system should be held up as the ideal, that which we strive for. It should not be watered down to reflect the current state of honor at the University. It is not meant to be a reflection of what is, but rather a model for what should be. I think the honor committee is looking around them and seeing people are not following the system, therefore the system must be broken, how can we fix this. I disagree. I think the question should be why is there a problem with honor at the University. I think the honor committee should be asking how can we help instill a sense of honor in our students and help them realize that it is one of the most important tenants of a person’s character. Is it the admissions policy that is broken? Is it society? I don't know, but I do know it is not because of the honor system and single sanction. Lowering the standard to which you strive only weakens where you will ultimately end up. What's going to happen if they water down the system, is that watered down system will become the new standard in 10-15 years, and the same types of student who think single sanction is too strict are going to think the new system is too harsh, and people aren't turning each other in because being suspended for a semester/year is too strong a penalty so they will continue to water it down. There are not shades of honor. I find it disturbing how many people seem to think that there are varying level of offenses.
I support single sanction. But, I think that instructors can do a better job designing grading methods that are hard to cheat: oral exams, pop quizzes, open-ended questions, and new questions. When an essay is turned in, the professor should also discuss the paper and sources orally with the student. The grading and question invention can be shared with students, to relieve the instructor of some of the load. Students often learn a subject far better by collaboration and explaining it to someone else than by regurgitation to the teacher.
I would be wary of elected juries. Elections bring out a cut of person far different from the student body at large. They can be great people, but you won't see uninvolved students sitting on a jury. We will end up with a small group of motivated students holding the entirety of the ultimate power - telling a student to leave. If UVA elections weren't decided by the quantity of lawn posters, the networking from other involvement, and Facebook profile picture ads, maybe it would be a good idea. Those people can have all the other elected positions in the student body. Leave the random, student jury - leave it for the uninvolved who far outnumber the involved; even leave it for the apathetic who still outnumber the involved. If better training is needed - give it. I'm sorry if jury nullification or reasonable doubt lead to innocent verdicts, but don't fix the problem by taking away the direct, purely representative line the student body has and replacing it with an indirect "more qualified" one determined by the impurities of a university election.
Oh my god, first it is the fiasco over firing / rehiring a President and now someone thinks we need to change the Honor Code! UVA is becoming the gang (school) who couldn’t shoot straight. It is too bad we can’t count on the State for 100% of the school’s funding needs because the alumni are going to be heading for the hills. Yesterdays early comments were very anti the existing Honor system and were very depressing. Today, I am happy to say and see that a lot more people who realize the value and purpose of the UVa honor code have spoken up. Wake up. What part of Integrity, Honesty and Truth are variable or subjective? None of it! The faculty survey showed 27% of the teaching faculty Neutral to Strongly / Completely Opposing the Honor System (Fig VI-6, p21, 2012 CSR Survey of Faculty ) . Throw them OUT ! NOW. This fish is rotting and stinking from the head. Don’t come to UVa to teach if you don’t understand and appreciate its culture and values. Don’t come to UVa to learn if you are not willing to live up to the expected levels of personal honesty, integrity and truthfulness that a truly excellent peer group demands and the University has always represented. That is the real value of Virginia, and a UVa education; these Ideals and the practical and real world application of them. That is what has always made UVa, different and better. If you want to water down the honor system just go ahead and can the whole thing now, in four short years there will be few who remember what an Honor System really means. At that point we can change the name of the school to “State U” and enlist Lance Armstrong to be our new President. He will fit in just fine!
To the Administration and Faculty: I suspect that some (if not all) of you have contributed to (or caused) the Honor Code dysfunction I'm saddened to read about. I'd like to be proven wrong, but my impression is that you've adopted a cavalier attitude toward the Code and turned your backs at a time when our society needs all the honor you can produce. You say you already do a lot to promote the Code? I say not enough. Honor Code values, goals and constraints aren't going to seep into your students, as if by osmosis. You have to continually inculcate those values, goals and constraints to assure that every graduate will make the University proud. We alumni may not all be rich and famous, but we can and should feel that we will always belong to a special community. Have you seen A Few Good Men? The way those two Marines cling so tenaciously to their simple code of honor, much to the frustration of LTJG Kaffee, their defense lawyer, is analogous to what UVA students should be striving toward: living honestly and honorably every waking moment. No excuses. You are the officers on duty. If you agree that the Honor Committee and student body are about to perform risky open-heart surgery on an aging patient, please consider what the Honor Code really needs -- vigorous exercise to get that old heart pumping again -- and share that view with your students. Adding layers of complexity and escape clauses to the Honor Code isn't the solution. Stripping it back down to its essence is.
I too feel like the first proposal is a good idea but the concept of using the honor committee alone to be on juries is a bad one. If the rules are so complex that regular students can't understand them then fix that problem, don't use only "experts" to be on juries.
I made the first comment and now, having read the ensuing ones, want to expand on it. When I matriculated in 1965 we spent the better part of a week in dorm hall meetings that introduced us to Honor, Judiciary and the historical/cultural background to our attendance. The Honor discussions frankly scared the crap out of most of us, who not only were then and there born into the culture of Honor but were largely frightened into absolute compliance. Good! My younger daughter having graduated in '09 and stepson in '11 -- both of them members of the Honor Committee -- I have a better understanding of the greater difficulty in gaining 100% adherence to Honor where the student body is far more diverse than in my day. Honor has had disproportionate problems with minority and international students' compliance and extreme problems dealing with athletes who often arrive as "privileged" admittees to the U. It's important to bear in mind that many of these students simply come from cultures whose concepts of honor differ from that of Jefferson and the all-white, comfortable class of students with whom I shared the Grounds. Without getting too far into the weeds, there are, for example, cultures in which snitching (which I did once as a student, scared shitless that I might have been wrong in seeing an offense committed) is not seen as honorable. The first thing we probably should do is fortify all incoming students with an appreciation of Honor just as we were initially set up to follow it. The process should begin well before they arrive on Grounds. We also should understand that Honor simply doesn't -- and is not going to have -- anything like the near-100% faculty support that it enjoyed in earlier days. Without some sort of reform that faculty buy into, we won't have their support, without which anything we do (from maintenance of the present terms of Honor to modifying it) will not yield a satisfactory level of compliance. I disagree with those who see the immediate proposal as eliminating the single sanction. Instead, it redefines "guilt" in a way that, at once, acknowledges 21st century realities and -- I believe -- ultimately promises a higher degree of participation by faculty and students. Greater compliance, I would imagine and hope.
As a recent graduate, I am very confused by what current students and alumni are referring to when they talk about Honor needing to "modernize" or catch up with the 21st century. What exactly has changed about the immorality of lying, cheating and stealing at UVA? Just because we have female, minority and international students, and new technology such as wikipedia and facebook does not change the concept of what it means to be honorable. Perhaps it is true we have students now coming from cultures or high schools where cheating was more pervasive and perhaps more acceptable, but as Mr. Kahn mentions above, UVA should be setting the expectations, not lowering them to the lowest common denominator. Whether you plagiarize from a dusty textbook in 1910 or from wikipedia in 2010, it is still plagiarism and should not be allowed at UVA. For my generation to say we need to "adjust" the concept of honor for the 21st century makes me embarrassed to be a part of it.
I am annoyed that so many people on this thread are disparaging the current student body as anything less than stellar. When you complain that things were "better back in my day," how can the rest of us possibly consider your understanding of the current situation at The University as anything but "dated." “Go back to the way things were” is not an actionable solution... Here are some points that people seem to be hovering around: 1) The student body and staff is much more diverse, meaning that the concept of "honor" varies significantly within the community. 2) The student body is huge and turns over every 4 years, meaning that the ability for the Honor staff to build a consistent understanding of the “community of trust” is limited as much by diversity as it is by resources. 3) Honor has not adapted to the digital age. Much of the cheating and plagiarism today is done with the aid of the computer and internet, but the investigation staff doesn't have the ability or the knowledge to do any kind of digital forensics or even appreciate the nuances of digital communication. I’ve even seen a jury baffled by the idea that a graphing calculator could be programmed by a student to produce a wrong answer. That’s late 1980s technology! 4) The state has placed significant financial burdens on the University. The University has in turn, given more emphasis to revenue drivers (Alumni, football), and placed more burdens on the real heart of the school - the professors. Either you are an overworked professor who doesn't have the time and support and emotional energy required to go through an honor trial, OR you are well supported professor that won't actually witness many violations because your grad students do your work. And for many TAs/grad students, English is a second language, so not just the concept of honor, but the thought of having to make a statement of considerable nuance and significant cost to another is a big burden. 8) Lastly, the investigations are shallow at best. But the cost to those wrongly accused or wrongly expelled is huge (particularly with rising tuition and debt). The confidence in the system has worn down over the years because the Honor staff has consistently failed to maintain the trust of The University (it’s not the other way around). When Honor has more resources to do a better job and better delineate indiscretions and mistakes from dishonorable action, then maybe The University community will entrust them with the right to deal with all occurrences as Honor sees fit. Until then, no member of the community will submit a case to Honor unless they believe that Honor can provide knowledgeable, appropriate, and measured justice.
Right on, Publius! Honor hasn't changed in 2000 years, and I share your embarrassment, if not your youth. I must say I'm getting a sinking feeling from some of these comments, many of which are focusing on minutia, and some of which also raise troubling implications about race and culture. Perhaps it would be more honest for UVA simply to throw out the Honor Code and change the name of the school from The University of Virginia to A University in Virginia. Jefferson will never know.
Actually...umm... Honor has changed. A lot. http://uvamagazine.org/features/article/the_evolution_of_honor/ Since it's inception, the student body has had to define and redefine honor. Your timeless golden ideal is an imagined one.
If you say so, James. By the way, it's "Since ITS inception . . ." And I suppose I should envy you if you're comfortable with the current state of affairs.
I agree 100% with my classmate, Bill Battison, and I really have nothing more to add other than I am very saddened to see the simple concept of HONOR being diluted at Virginia. I admit that I am probably not as smart as most of the current student body (and certainly faculty), but this is a simple issue. Perhaps they have outsmarted themselves. My checkbook is also closed.
John, I'm not comfortable with current state of affairs, but blaming the student body for not understanding the concept of "Honor" is hardly a constructive or even novel criticism. Also, I had already recognized my error but could not edit the post; but thanks for the ad hominem distraction from the issue. It was very helpful.
One cannot step into the same river twice. The University changes with time despite its timeless ideals. I regret and reject the crudity, amorality, avarice and dishonor of our times. But I have taught "professionalism" (i.e. honor and civility)to new Virginia lawyers for manny years and I can report that too many of them understand honor as a quaint relic of a bygone era of southern male culture. Edmund Burke brilliantly explained that our great institutions- of which U.Va. surely is one of the greatest - must try to preserve the ancient wisdom against the whim of the current age. But even Burke recognized that the Church, the Academy, the Military and the learned professions can not preserve cultural traditions in a democracy if the people have given up on them. Don't blame the students for their confusion about honor. They are just the canaries in the coal mine of the modernity we created.
James, I apologize for tweaking your spelling. Among other things I'm a retired English teacher who has developed a headache from this contentious discussion. But I don't recall ever "blaming the student body for not understanding the concept of 'Honor'" and it would be helpful if you could direct me to such a statement. In fact, I think students come to UVA primarily to learn and that it is, therefore, the University's responsibility fully to explain the honor system and its requirements. As to my assertion that honor hasn't changed, I'd point to the works of Chaucer and Shakespeare, both of whom seemed to understand the concept quite well. I think the historians among us could trace the word much further back. But do you know that in England, late 18th Century, people were hung for stealing a basket of bread or a pair of shoes? That was before the Brits got the idea to ship criminals to Australia. Point is, sure, penalties for "honor violations" change. And my dictionary gives multiple definitions of honor. But isn't it kind of like pornography, which that senator once said he couldn't define, but that he knew it when he saw it? I maintain that honor, as a word and concept, goes back a very long way, and that it hasn't really changed.
The Honor System was one of the primary things that attracted me to the University, and I had the privelege to serve full time on the Honor Committee from 1982-1983 while at Darden. After years of debating the single sanction, partial student juries had recently been adopted at that time. This change was in answer to the perception that the single sanction was too harsh. During my tenure, I participated as a jury member in several honor trials. In more than one of the cases I was involved with, the accused was acquitted - not for lack of evidence, but because the randomly selected student jurors were unwilling to apply the single sanction - even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I believe the return to juries selected exclusively of Honor Committee members is very positive, as that group is not only trained to understand the system - and protect confidentiality - but has made a commitment to enforce the single sanction and will not acquit obviously guilty students simply because they feel sorry for them.
I would ask three things of the alumnae in this discussion: 1) recall why you chose Virginia over all others. 2) work actively and financially to retain the single aspect of the Honor System noted below. 3) belay the false modesty and deference to the alleged "brilliance" of the current mob on the Grounds. Why did we choose Virginia? I chose UVa because of the single sanction Honor System. I chose to join the "academical village" because I expected to be among like minded cohorts, all looking to rise above the mediocrity, cheating and cheap behavior we had seen in high school. I wanted to try and distinguish myself within a community which for generations has marked its place in the world of academe as exceptional, but above all else was the pinnacle of academic integrity. I didn't know Virginia's full prestige until I left Charlottesville. At every occasion I utter my alma mater name; whether in academic, business or social settings, I experience a tangible sense of deference to my education. It is not because Thomas Jefferson is Virginia's architect. Rather it is the far reach of the Honor System's prestige and my claims to an education are beyond reproach. Will this and future generations of Cavaliers enjoy these fruits of Honor if we fail the legacy of those before us? Sadly, I think not. Work actively to save at least one aspect of the Honor System, the single sanction for scholastic impropriety. If the generation on Grounds now tolerates shoplifting or false ids, let these acts be dealt with as they criminal offenses they are. Save the single sanction for the academic offenses. The integrity of Virginia distinguishes it above all others. Texas land grant schools pump oil out of the ground day and night and can buy Noble laureates by the dozen. Virginia's academics are unimpeachable. The Ivies have a hundred more years of endowment but no distinction of Honor. I took a master's from a 350 year old school in Cambridge Massachusetts and the bulletin boards in its hallways are littered an inch deep with ads offering papers for sale. Professional schools, graduate programs and business enterprises around the world recognize Virginia's integrity, at least through this moment and this generation. Dear alumnae, I beg you squeeze every cent of value from your dollars. Self modesty in the face of the crowd now on the Grounds is counter productive. This generation has passed college entrance exams with bloated baseline scores, write papers with spell check and have distinguished themselves only by drinking their their way to a posting as top skin magazine party school. Let the President continue to welcome them each year as the most competitive class, which to a degree may be true because of more applicants per available seat. But they are by no means the brightest. From what I understand, they let cheats stay because they "feel sorry" for them. When does naive become stupid? If this class has no sense of Honor and social contract, then they better damn well wise up to the fact that the slob with the crib notes or the plagiarized paper is competing for a higher place on the curve than them. Show compassion for the cheater on the same road to Law School or Medical School or a career as the honest scholar? For the love of God, show compassion for your parents who have assumed tens of thousands of dollars of debt to have you in that academical village of Honor and get you a start in life. Finally, save your pity for the twenty young man and women who were not offered admission to Virginia because a cheater got their opportunity.
To all -- Please be aware of what you're saying, when you say that you chose UVA for the Single Sanction and the Honor Code. That is likely not accurate. If the Single Sanction and Honor Code had been at VCU or Radford (not that there's anything wrong with those schools), would you have chosen to go there? I doubt it. You chose UVA because of the many wonderful aspects to UVA...the Honor System being only one among many (that is, if you consider the Honor System to be wonderful).
This is amazing. Educated UVA students are not competent to judge other UVA students, but meanwhile in the rest of society you may have to endure a jury consisting of McDonald's and Taco Bell workers.
Thank you for your words, Michael Lawler. As an alum and recent visiting faculty member, I couldn't agree more.
I confess I never thought much of "honorsystemcrisis" syndrome, which some had during my four years there, and I've seen or heard evidence of many times since. Personally, I took the code literally, applied it literally, and saw nobody do what I clearly thought was academic cheating. I also think that UVA being hyper-serious about its honor code some times strikes me as evidence of 'Hoos haughtiness. I was therefore gratified to hear President Sullivan, whom I had the pleasure of dining with and hearing speak at Chautauqua last summer, comment that although underage drinking via false ID or similar misrepresentation seems an obvious "lying" offense---and perhaps a cheating and stealing one, as well---it has historically not been deemed an honor offense. So much for honor system purity. As for the proposed "reforms," I offer a few thoughts, reflecting the experience of a lawyer of 23 years, who has now spent half of that in federal criminal defense. It is unsurprising that the single sanction system may discourage zealous reporting of suspected offenses on the front end, and encourage "jury nullification" on the back end. That's how the English and American legal systems developed. When most offenses were deemed felonies and routinely sanctioned by death, jurors started the unremarkable process of acquitting those who appeared "guilty" in the omniscient view (more on this below). Lawmakers and prosecutors, whether they liked this trend or not, recognized the reality of it, and we started changing our laws. As for "expert" or "specialist" juries, to quote the inimitable Charlie Brown, "Good grief." Would be reformers of American jurisprudence have raised similar complaints since the Founding Fathers were toddlers. Somehow, the Republic, and our legal system, has survived, with average citizens making ultimate decisions. This brings me back to the idea of an "omniscient view." The phrase begs numerous questions, including whether we flawed humans can ever generate any system which is truly omniscient (the Bible I read daily, and my witnesses swear upon, suggests otherwise). But even if I assume the reformers are omnisciently "right" in their evaluations, I question the proposed reforms, and their three related presumptions: (1) the current system does not (and should) encourage the reporting of all (or at least more) honor offenses, (2) the current system should reward those who confess and speak truthfully, and (3) the system should be designed to increase the finding of violations. Here are some alternative assumptions, seemingly lost among these. The honor system does not exist, without the support of UVA as a whole--regular students, serving as prosecutors, defenders, and honor system adjudicators alike. It is morally right for a student (or any citizen) to ponder carefully, before she reports a fellow student or citizen, for what she suspects (but may not omnisciently "knows") is the equivalent of a scholastic felony. It is equally natural for a student or citizen to think twice (or more) before finding such an offense, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite having no honor system angst myself, I applaud those current students and faculty, reformers and traditionalists alike, for thinking hard about these issues. I would, however, suggest that the honor system has survived today not in spite of its structure, but because of it.
Dear Jennifer, Your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.(1) They live in a world without absolutes. They live in a colorless universe of grey relativism where every human foible has a rationale outside the self and there is never the burden of personal responsibility. In this age, there is no human passion for serving social contract, a higher purpose or advancing the condition of man; just the relentless yearning to feed the unquenchable appetite of unbridled id, abetted and enabled by those who refuse to take a stand. Take notice that I did choose the University of Virginia because of the single sanction Honor System, for the reasons I noted above. All I had to do was study and take my own tests relying on my memory and not crib sheets. All I had to do was write my own papers about my own ideas and attribute with footnotes the sources of other ideas in my discussion. Nothing heroic, just basic honest behavior. In 2001, a potential shadow descended upon Virginia when over 100 students were challenged about a term paper in the physics department. You were probably in elementary school. Believe this Jennifer, the whole academic world was watching, to see whether UVa would suffer the insult. Over forty students got their twenty four hour notice and left. Every Medical School, Law School, Grad School and Human Resources Director in every major enterprise in the world saw the consequences of cheating at the University of Virginia. The credibility of a UVa education has never been higher than that day. And thereafter, every graduate to this day has enjoyed the prestige gained by the labor of that year's Honor Council. One women in that years class was asked what it all meant to her. She didn't rationalize sympathy for the cheats. She said, "It means that my C in physics is better than an A in most colleges in America." Curse the class that weakens the Honor System and distinguishes itself only by its elevation to the drunkest in America. Yes, Jennifer, there is Honor. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist and you know it abounds and gives to your life its highest beauty and joy.(2) Go to the Alderman Library and read the inscription on the statue of the Aviator. If you would take the Honor of Honors, then by God, you are duty bound to preserve its integrity for the next generation. Be strong! (1)(2) after Francis Pharcellus Church
During my first year in 1967, the following quote from Shakespeare was slipped under our dorm door the morning before exams began: "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." Is it so difficult to understand and embrace the Honor Code?
You might slip this under the room of 37 West Lawn... Let none presume To wear an undeserv'd dignity. O, that estates, degrees and offices Were not deriv'd corruptly, and that clear honour Were purchas'd by the merit of the wearer!
A large part of the proposed Honor System reform hinges on the argument that students who lie are more likely to stay in the community of trust by taking the case to Honor Court. I'd like to see UVA's Honor Committee present an argument with some real world examples regarding Honor Cases with "overwhelming evidence", but a not guilty verdict due to jury inexperience. According to UVA's Honor Website less than 45 cases went to trial per year in the last two years. No further data is given. I'd like to see how many students were acquitted & how many expelled? I'd also like to see estimates on how many students would be affected by the informed retraction? Do students want people who admit to cheating back at our University after a year of Honor leave? Another issue I think that the proposed reform may bring is that a student with an egregious breach of honor may return to the University after one year whereas a student who goes to court to argue a "trivial" honor infraction may be expelled via the single sanction. Wouldn't this upset the incentive system we are trying to correct?
Hello all--it is good to hear concern about the current Honor referendum from alumni. My name is Elliott Oakley (CLAS '13) and I'm working to voice student opposition to this proposal through a new organization, Students' Honor Caucus. Anyone who is passionate about Honor and finds these changes deeply troubling, as myself and many of my classmates do, can reach out to our campaign with support. My email is reo5vd@virginia.edu. Any donations you can offer can be directed through our account at Alumni Hall for "Students' Honor Caucus." Many thanks, for your thoughts and your continued involvement with the University.
Informed Retraction awards "honest students", but are accused students even worthy of being called honest at all? So say a student has plagiarized on his or her term paper (maybe even word for word) and is accused of violating the Honor Code. He or she is then "rewarded" when the student ADMITS and says 'Yes, I have indeed cheated and violated the Honor Code." The student is then asked to leave the University for a year through a paradox of "punishment" and "reward". The Honor Committee has decided to punish you for cheating by giving you a year off and yet we are rewarding you for being 'honest' by giving you a year off. And so now this student takes a year off for 'punishment' to spend some quality time with family, maybe to finally read Jane Eyre like they wanted to and earn some quick cash at a local restaurant. And the Honor Committee naively believes the student has certainly "learned" their lesson after admitting guilt and nods their heads in approval to this model student who has upheld honesty and Honor. And yet consider another case of a student accused of violating the Honor Code when they are accused of asking for help on a homework question. The student refuses to admitting to guilt of violating the Honor Code because they believe that they were not cheating. The student goes through trial, is met with an elected jury of Honor members who believe that Honor must be upheld at all costs, and is expelled. I believe that does not uphold the Community of Trust that UVA believes in. Who would allow a student who blatantly cheated AND admitted to cheating get off with just a light spanking? Who really believes this student will have 'learned their lesson' with a "horrible" punishment of a year off? Having a year off is nothing, students do this all the time. Who in what right mind would call the first student 'honorable' and the second student 'dishonorable?' The proposal and Single Sanction are both flawed. The Honor System needs to be reformed with less emphasis on arbitrary and harsh punishments and more emphasis on helping students truly understand the codes of honor. If we are really a Community of Trust, we should act as a community and dole out appropriate punishments to appropriate violations and guide each other to upholding honor. I don't believe in a community who is OKAY with giving a fellow student the boot without a backward glance. (excuse my bad grammar of interchanging 'he or she' and 'they/their')
Yes to the first change. No to the second change. Honor should adapt and recognize the folly of youth. But the guiding principle of student self governance, as the sum of all parts, has always been more important than Honor itself. It had also historically been the more endangered of the two. Giving this much concentrated power to an elected panel of politicos would represent the same menace to UVA as it oftentimes represents to the real world. Honor doesn't need more power to decide the entire lifelong fate of people who choose to attend UVA.
Breaking a social contract is no folly of youth. A folly of youth is an impulsive act of little consequence. Plagiarism and cheating on exams are premeditated acts requiring the planning of method and means before the act. These are not impulsive acts of youth. This is a lack of character. It is the conscious behavior of one who violates an oath they took to enter a community scholars. In consciously doing so they took advantage of the rest of the community. It is not difficult to rely only on one's own effort and memory to take an exam. It is not difficult to write a paper with one's own ideas and give citation to those ideas reviewed and considered from other minds. It is difficult, when one has striven honestly, to accept the advantage a cheater gains on the grading curve and post graduate opportunities by using crib notes, electronic devices and purchased papers. Failing to keep the social contract of Honor made upon entering a community and stealing advantage from those who live up to the contract should dictate the exclusion from that community. Life goes on and fate is determined by character not which college one attends. There are other colleges but only one University of Virginia, an academical village bound in a compact of Honor, the terms of which we bind ourselves together at the outset.
Honor, like Truth, is absolute. Honor absolutely does not change . Honor is absolutely pure. Honor is absolutely the same yesterday and today and tomorrow. Situational ethics have weakened us as a people, a society and a nation. What is true and honest and honorable today might not be true and honest and honorable tomorrow because of... insert whatever excuse(reason!) you like. Bonk! Does not compute! Cultures, societies, and yes, nations come and go. Honor, truth and character remain a constant. "On my honor I have neither given nor received aid on this examination." Those serious words, written many, many times, were/are/will be basic to my securing an honorable degree of "higher" learning.
Leave a Comment