"We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson
So, why is it that we want to reform the Honor System? Well, there are many reasons. Here are a few of them:
1. The Honor Committee Expels Innocent Students - As is inevitable in any system of justice, innocent students are sometimes found guilty of Honor offenses they did not commit, or certainly did not commit intentionally. While sanction reform does not solve this problem, it dramatically decreases the impact that a wrongful conviction will have on an innocent student's life.
2. The Honor System Encourages Students to Lie - If a student has committed an Honor offense and is caught, there is currently no incentive to be honest and cooperative. In fact, your best bet is to lie your way through the process. Those that lie might get away with it, while those who don't can only look forward to expulsion.
In the Spring of 2006, we saw this at work in the open trial of Steve Gilday. In this trial, Mr. Gilday was accused of cheating on a test and then lying to the professor about it. Mr. Gilday was dishonest with the professor, and within two hours of doing so (immediately after his next class), sent an apology e-mail to his Professor confessing, explaining everything, and offering to make up for it. Mr. Gilday's example is every bit the integrity that our Community of Trust seeks. However, while Mr. Gilday was acquitted of cheating, the confession that came because of his conscience cost Mr. Gilday a guilty verdict for lying. If Mr. Gilday had continued to lie, however, we can be near certain this conviction would never have happened.
3. Students Can Freely Commit Some Honor Offenses Because They Are "Trivial" - It is very easy to tell many things that are trivial. Stealing $5, cheating on a homework assignment worth less than 1% of your grade, or even collaborating on a take-home assignment worth 2% of your grade. These are all things most students know are deemed "trivial," and as a result can do these things without fear of any punishment. Even if that $5 was needed to buy dinner that night, or the take-home assignment or homework was enough to mess up the curve of an entire class. Our proposal would make sure there are no more offenses considered too "trivial" to take up.
In the Fall of 2006 open trial of Stephanie Garrison, we saw just how far this could go. Ms. Garrison was found guilty of lying about her UJC sanctions, and similarly, because of the news stories before hand, of lying to the entire student body. Yet, her act was deemed not serious enough to warrant expulsion, and subsequently, Ms. Garrison, despite all the people she had lied to and deceived, received no punishment at all.
4. Students and Professors Are Reluctant to Report Honor Offenses - More and more Professors are announcing their reluctance to initiate cases because of both the severe consequences as well as the very cumbersome process necessitated by these severe consequences. Students also overwhelmingly state that they are uncomfortable reporting their peers when the sanction is so severe. In the Honor Committee's own report from the Spring of 2006, only 39% of students even state that they would be likely to report an offense they witnessed. In that same report, 67% of students admitted the severity of the penalty would deter them from reporting an offense, and only 19% of students stated that it would not deter them.
With current statistics on case reporting rates, this data, and past survey data about actual reporting rates, it seems likely that at least 2,000, but probably more, Honor offenses go unreported every year.
5. Jury Nullification - More and more often, student juries are refusing to convict students obviously guilty of Honor offenses. These juries are uncomfortable with expelling students. This nullification, however, obviously undermines our Community of Trust. Additionally, this means that first, many students who have committed Honor offenses are released with no punishment, and more importantly, because some juries will nullify and some won't, the drastic difference in penalties that is dependent on what jury a student gets means the System has become unjust.
In the Fall of 2005, the open trial of Lindsay McClung and Joe Schlingbaum saw a jury unwilling to expel two students who, by the rules of the Honor System, had committed an Honor offense. The jury was convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these two students had improperly collaborated on homework worth 6% of their class grade. The jury was also convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the students should have known what they were doing was an Honor offense (which is all that is necessary for a "guilty" ruling on intent). However, the jury acquitted the two students on seriousness, and according to press interviews, this was primarily because the jury was uncomfortable expelling two students who only should have known they were committing an Honor offense. Even those who support this verdict, as many do, recognize that much of this result was the luck of the jury, and many other juries may not have been so lenient.
6. International Students - International students are four times more likely to be accused of an Honor offense than other students. Honor has been trying for years to alleviate this problem, but no proper system of education seems to work. Additionally, because of the USA PATRIOT ACT, international students convicted of an Honor offense are not only expelled, but also deported. Because of the extreme severity of the penalty on internationals students, as well as the cultural and language divide and Honor's inability to properly educate the international students, only sanction reform seems to be able to protect these students from deportation.
7. While the Single Sanction was an Appropriate Punishment in 1842, It Is Not in 2009 - In the 1800's, the University was small and homogenous. College educations were not necessary to gain very good jobs within the American marketplace. The University's primary purpose was education, not preparation for the real world. Expulsion from the University merely meant the loss of the ability to gain the extra education, it did not have a major impact on a student's future. Finally, the community was so small, one offense did seriously hurt the entire community.
Today, many things have changed. College educations are necessary for good jobs, and in a school like U.Va., being demoted to a lower school could have a dramatic impact on the rest of a student's life. The University is about preparing students for the real world. Having to endure punishment before being immediately removed (except in the case of very serious offenses, which would be the same with our proposal) is a much more realistic preparation for the real world. Finally, the community is much larger, and it is the combination of all the minor, "trivial" offenses being committed regularly that damages our community far more than the small number of larger offenses.
8. This is an Educational Institution - Ultimately, the University also is not the real world. It is an educational institution. Honor offenses offer the University a prime opportunity to educate students who have made mistakes. Instead, our current system merely passes the problem along to someone else (by just sending the students to other universities), something that is ultimately dishonorable.
9. The System Violates Basic Judicial Philosophy - One of the most basic principles of law and jurisprudence is that you "Treat like cases alike, and different cases differently." By applying one of only two penalties (expulsion, or absolutely nothing) we are violating this key principle that has protected people from improper legal proceedings for centuries.
10. A Severe Penalty Does Not Increase Deterrence of Offenses - According to national experts on academic integrity, increasing the severity of honor-related penalties does nothing to deter offenses. Rather, these experts confirm that only the certainty of punishment deters offenses. Our proposal will make sure that punishment is far more certain than it is today.
The University of Maryland, for example, is a larger school with an Honor System that has multiple sanctions. Most studies show Maryland's cheating rates to be similar to the University of Virginia, which defies the trend that the larger the school, the higher the cheating rate. However, the University of Maryland also has an initiation rate that is twice that of the University (an impressive number when you consider that Honor at Maryland is not nearly as talked about and hyped over as it is at Virginia), meaning certainty of punishment is much higher, and more cheating is deterred.
If you have any questions about these, or any suggestions for more reasons, please contact us at savehonor@yahoo.com.