<p>Changes have been discussed for decades to the UVa Honor system. I believe these current proposals make a great deal of sense, and are based upon what has actually been happening, as opposed to some idealized vision. The students will be asked to vote to approve the changes, as part of UVa's system of student self-governance.</p>
<p>Professors are still just going to fail students instead of dealing with this broken system. When I was a TA, we found that 10% of the class had cheated. We brought 2 cases (out of these 50 we found), 1 went to trial, and he was found innocent by lying his butt off and the jury did not understand how he had cheated (it was CS) so they said he could stay. It was disgusting. From that time on, I never brought honor cases, I just told the students that I would fail them or tell the professor to let him bring honor charges, and every time the student said they would take the 0. There is an acceptable response to cheating, it’s giving a 0 and using the current system as a threat. That’s basically it. This may or may not pass, at least it is still single sanction. Any threat to single sanction will never pass.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-virginia/685562-fourth-year-student-found-guilty-lying-uva.html?highlight=honor+code[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-virginia/685562-fourth-year-student-found-guilty-lying-uva.html?highlight=honor+code</a></p>
<p>The thread above from 2009-10, coupled with the recently announced proposals, make me very pleased my child will graduate from UVa this Spring. Our family has grown to love UVa during our child’s time at The University, but I would not want a student at the school if the provision to have honor trial juries populated only with elected-honor council members is put into place. While independent jurors may tend to “over” acquit students of offenses (I haven’t seen the stats on trails to convictions), a juror of only elected honor council members is virtually guaranteed to convict any accused students who are brought to trial. Why do I say that? Honor Council members are a self-selecting lot. Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely they would vote against a fellow Council member who is prosecuting an allege offense. The process will change from one like a criminal trial to one more akin to a grand jury – where the old adage is, even an incompetent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. </p>
<p>The UVa community can twist the process all it wants, but the problem with the honor code in the 21st century is not the composition of the jury. The problem is with the single sanction, particularly where it is meted out by students with NO opportunity for a review by responsible University faculty or administrators. Think about the movie Animal House,
do you really want young Neidemeyers (or Mary Siegels, as in the example of power-tripping from just four years ago) having even greater power to decide the academic fates of their peers? </p>
<p>I don’t. Indeed, I wonder how the Law school sits silent on this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This just is not true. I have met everyone on the Committee and I personally know most of them. The Honor Committee has possibly been “zealots” in the past, but that’s not true of the present day. I’ve been around when the Chair has had to sign the enrollment discontinued paperwork and I see how he agonizes over it. Nobody who is involved in the Honor System, myself included (as a counsel), enjoys removing people from UVa. Rather, we do it because we believe in the ideal of Honor although we become generally disenchanted with the System as we grow older and see how the System is flawed. The System does not work the way it should and everyone knows it, but whenever we try to propose a change we get blamed for being “zealots” and everyone shoots it down. Everyone is a critic, but nobody ever decides to try to plan a reform unless they are involved in Honor. The general student body is never proactive–only reactionary.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I’ve been on trials with Committee juries, Mixed (Committee members and random students) juries, and random student juries and the accused students, by far, got the most fair treatment from the Committee jury. They know what a severe task they are charged with and they debate it for long hours compared to random students who do not want to be there and are checking their phones when the accused student is speaking. You can call me biased if you want, but it happens with startlingly regularity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Single Sanction will never be removed. The Alumni Association raises large amounts of money ($25,000+) to campaign against any movement. The Honor Committee does not deal the cards, but plays with the hand it is dealt.</p>
<p>In addition, the Chair has weekly meetings with both the Executive Vice President for Student Affairs, Pat Lampkin, and the General Counsel’s Office for the University. During these times the Honor Committee does get guidance on how to proceed with affairs, but giving them oversight and the ability to reverse decision would completely violate the idea of student self-governance.</p>
<p>I feel that most people are missing the main point of this legislation which is to allow for students who have committed an Honor Offense to leave for a year and then return to the Community of Trust. I have had to represent students in the past who are some of the bravest people who I have ever met because he or she had the courage to admit to what he or she had done knowing very well that he or she could get a guilty verdict by doing so. All of these students have been removed from the University and they are the students that we want to keep here. Not the students who lie through their teeth to the jury panels and then get off scot-free. The problem is that if we allow for students to acknowledge their wrong doings then we will always have students who try to get past random student panels which is why the Honor Committee has also included jury reform onto this process.</p>
<p>If anyone wants any clarification then please let me know. If I sound exasperated then please forgive me because it is not directed toward anyone on this forum.</p>
<p>Ava, I hope you’re wrong that the Honor Committee members have a ‘good old boys’ mentality when it comes to trials. That said I prefer a random jury too, believing deeply that UVA students come to understand and respect the honor system as an intrinsic aspect of the university, and come to understand that it is a critical reason their diplomas are as highly valued by alumni as they are. I would hope that any jury seated at an honor trial would be fair and just. Many things at UVA have changed I suppose, but I believe that the sense of honor which binds students and faculty remains intact. The single sanction must remain unchanged. People who are certain that they have witnessed an honor violation must report, and those who violate the code must be held accountable. In too many ways now, people are not made to accept the consequences of their actions. I would hate to see the University adopt this “year off” idea, as it completely undermines the central tenants- you will not lie, cheat, or steal, or you are gone. Not gone for a year to think about it, just gone. If a student honestly doesn’t think he or she can manage to live an honorable life, that person should not attend UVa in the first place; it’s not the place for them. The importance of the honor system is made clear in the literature students receive, on the applications they sign, and in every tour they join.</p>
<p>10is, I typed out a long reply to you last night, and then lost the contents before it posted. I will summarize my thoughts, here. Hopefully I won’t lose this one, too.</p>
<p>I really respect you for serving on the Honor Committee. From other posts, you are clearly a hardworking and dedicated student. I commend you taking time from your rigorous studies to work to better the University.</p>
<p>That said, you make two statements that undermine the current honor system, in my opinion. </p>
<p>First you noted that single sanction will never change because of ALUMNI meddling. If STUDENT self governance is such an overarching principal, why are the alums allowed a say in how the honor code is administered today? The alums should butt out. I attended an event last fall in DC where President Sullivan was the featured speaker. An alum hogged much of the time allotted for Q and A to argue that maintaining the single sanction is THE most important issue facing the University. REALLY?? With the budget challenges, the governance issues, etc., currently facing the University, it is laughable to contend that “single sanction” is even in the top 50 issues facing the school. On top of that, the alumni wasting $25,000 on coffee mugs and other swag exclaiming “save single sanction” is an outrageous interference with student self governance. But it’s tradition they say – well Confederate Flags, segregation and male only were traditions at one time, too. But the school has flourished without them. It would be just fine without the “single sanction,” too.</p>
<p>I am not advocating looking the other way to lying, cheating, or stealing. They should be punished by appropriate sanctionS (emphasis on the plural), after affording the accused due process. That is the problem I see with the proposal to change the composition of the juries. The more severe the punishment, the more critical it is to ensure due process. While I would trust 10is, I am not sure I would trust his peers to always do the right and honorable thing.</p>
<p>Your second comment I found illuminating was: </p>
<p>"[W]e become generally disenchanted with the System as we grow older and see how the System is flawed. The System does not work the way it should and everyone knows it . . . ."</p>
<p>Isn’t the answer to fight to create an honor system at UVa that WILL stand the test of time, one that you will not become disenchanted with? And to fight to modify “single sanction,” if that will help fix the flaws in the system. </p>
<p>89 – no, I am not an alum. I did not get off the OOS waitlist for law school many years ago and had to settle for Northwestern 
But I have been very involved at the University over the past few years. I just don’t accept your impassioned argument that “single sanction” is the heart and soul of UVa, and that without it, one’s diploma would be cheapened. </p>
<p>If you graduated in 1989, you would have attended UVa after the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21. So you are probably aware that using fake ID’s was expressly exempted from the UVa honor code after the drinking age was raised. Accordingly, it is OK under the Honor Code to lie about one’s ability to lawfully purchase and consume alcohol, but it merits expulsion if one runs afoul of the rather complicated definitions of plagiarism in the honor code. To me, that is a wart on the University, not the heart. </p>
<p>Please excuse any typos. I want to post this before I lose it again.</p>
<p>The single sanction is a ridiculous policy. There is no opportunity to learn from ones’ mistakes when the penalty is all or nothing. The appropriate response for a single incident of cheating is to fail the student on that assignment/test (or possibly the class if it was egregious enough). Removal from the university shouldn’t be the standard response; it should be saved for serial offenders.</p>
<p>I also share AVA’s worry that the proposed nonrandom juries will increase the rate of guilty verdicts.</p>
<p>I missed this thread. I have some responses, but I think this website would be easier for everyone and informative if you’re interested in the proposal.</p>
<p>[Campaign</a> for Honor | Restore the Ideal](<a href=“http://www.honor2013.com/]Campaign”>http://www.honor2013.com/)</p>
<p>I think that the FAQ is pretty good at addressing most questions.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot posted here explaining, or what could be seen as in favor of, the changes. In fairness, or equity…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Cavalier Daily :: Honor proposal meets fierce opposition](<a href=“http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/02/honor-proposal-meets-fierce-opposition]The”>Honor proposal meets fierce opposition - The Cavalier Daily - University of Virginia's Student Newspaper)</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this, blueiguana. Glad to hear the Law School is weighing in, after all.</p>
<p>Election results were posted today. “Informed retraction” (the Bellamy Referendum) was approved. “Restore the Ideal” - as I understand it, the jury reform - did not. </p>
<p>Complete election results: <a href=“https://www.student.virginia.edu/elections/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Election-Results-Presentation_2013_Final-Version.pdf[/url]”>https://www.student.virginia.edu/elections/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Election-Results-Presentation_2013_Final-Version.pdf</a></p>
<p>Cav Daily coverage: [The</a> Cavalier Daily :: University Board of Elections announces student election results](<a href=“http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/03/university-board-of-elections-announces-student-election-results]The”>University Board of Elections announces student election results - The Cavalier Daily - University of Virginia's Student Newspaper)</p>