University of Virginia Library

Substantive Scope Examined

Limiting Honor System May Prevent Injustices

The following statement was presented before
the Honor Committee last Tuesday night by Yale
Lewis, a student in the University's School of Law.
Mr. Lewis' testimony concerns the substantive
scope of the system. -ed.

Having observed the Honor System for three
years as a law student and having had the
experience of participating in it as counsel to a
student accused of lying, it is my opinion that,
although it should be preserved to advance valid
interests of Virginia students in protecting
themselves from certain harmful effects resulting
from the lying, cheating and stealing of other
students, the substantive scope of the system
should be narrowed in order to lessen the
possibility that it will affect any student unfairly.
Moreover, clarifying and tightening the substantive
scope of the system should strengthen student
support and lessen the likelihood that it could be
invalidated by an external court of law. Consequently,
I have outlined what, in my opinion, are
the real student interests which the Honor Code
should be designed to protect; and secondly, I have
made four suggestions as to how these interests can
be best effectuated without running the unnecessary
risks of treating some single student
unfairly.

Student Interests Protected

Dismissing students who lie, cheat or steal
advances two important student interests: (1) the
non-offending student, to some extent, is protected
thereby from (a) being lied to by another
student, (b) having his and the University's
property stolen by another student, and (c) being
put to academic disadvantage by another student's
unfair conduct. (2) To the extent that others
believe that a University of Virginia student does
not lie cheat or steal, the student obtains the
benefit of (a) a presumption that the student's
statements are not knowingly false, (b) a
presumption that he can be trusted not to steal
another's goods, and (c) a more informal and
relaxed atmosphere within which to write examinations
and perform in other ways for academic
credit.

A third reason given in support of the Honor
System is that by participating in it, a student
obtains a moral perspective that induces a positive
attitude toward individual integrity and honesty.
Certainly students have a strong interest in the
growth of such concepts in themselves and their
fellow students. However, I believe that this
interest does not exist independently from the first
two, but rather is inextricably interwoven with
them. Therefore, to the extent that the first two
interests are advanced by the actual functioning of
the Honor System, I believe that this third interest
will also be advanced. In any event, it is clear that
an "honor system" that is as free as is possible
from logical inconsistencies, unenforceable
standards and dangers of unfairness is more likely
to be respected and inculcate moral integrity than
is one with such infirmities.

Dishonorable Dismissals

Based upon my opinion as to the actual
interaction of the above real interests of the
student body which the Honor System should be
designed to effectuate and the practical limits on
the extent to which the honor system can
successfully advance those interests, I recommend
that a student become liable for dishonorable
dismissal from the University of Virginia only
under the following four conditions: (1) The
student makes an oral or written statement known
by him to be false and in order to influence
another person to accept the truthfulness of that
misrepresentation accompanies with it the acts or
actions (normally a statement) to show that he is
invoking the special trust placed in a student
bound by the Honor Code. This special trust must
be initially raised by the speaker or requested by
one to whom he is speaking and then affirmatively
agreed to by the speaker. It does not attach to
every statement a student makes.

Evidence is Advantage

Confining the offence of lying to statements
accompanied by evidence that the speaker had
taken advantage of the special trust put in a
student bound by the Honor Code has two
advantages. The first of these if that the speaker in
order to give objective evidence of his invocation
of this special trust warns himself that he is (a)
placing himself in a situation of jeopardy that is
not associated with normal conversation and the
unthinking comment, and, (b) he is given a finite
period of time to consider the known and certain
consequences of his action. Thus when a student
hastily gives a false answer to another's question,
and is then asked to confirm it as a student bound
by the Honor Code, he will have an opportunity to
retract the misrepresentation and thereby avoid the
consequences of violating the Code. The latter
point is extremely important in avoiding what
must be a very frequent situation in which a person
is asked a question; unthinkingly lies; and then
feels himself "locked in" by his statement and
therefore maintains it.

A second advantage of this approach is that it
largely avoids the problem of uncertainty involved
with a determination of the speaker's state of
mind. It will still be necessary to determine
whether the student objectively knew his statement
was false, however, it will no longer be
necessary to inquire into whether he subjectively
intended to lie. An inquiry into whether the
objective acts or actions of the speaker (normally a
statement) which accompanied the misrepresentation
were of the type reasonably expected
to invoke the special trust of the Honor Code will
replace the latter inquiry. Alternatively, the
student body could of course, retain the inquiry as
to whether the accused student subjectively
intended to lie and attach the above condition as
simply another objective element in the offence as
it now exists.

Basic Proposal

The basic proposal outlined above and its
alternative formulation both appear to balance
fairly the interest of the student in not being lied
to in important matters and in being able to invoke
a special trust on the one hand and, on the other
hand, the interest of the student in not being
placed in a position where an unthinking
misrepresentation could result in his feeling
compelled to continue his misrepresentation in
order not to be accused of lying. (2) A student
knowingly makes an oral or written false statement
regarding his academic work to any member of the
University who is involved in the acceptances and
evaluation by the University of the student's
academic performance.

Because honesty in academic relations seems to
be the core of the honor system, the approach
outlined in condition (1) above would be explicitly
expanded to comprehend condition (2). This
narrow ground could be more readily grounded
into the student's mind than can be the present
much broader system and the student could be
held to constructive notice that all such academic
statements will automatically invoke a special trust
and accordingly the sanction of dismissal for
dishonesty. (3) A student has cheated in
connection with work submitted to the University
of Virginia for academic credit.

Limiting the sanction for dismissal for cheating
to cheating connected with material submitted to
the University for academic credit fully protects
the core interest of the community in academic
honesty. Beyond this the University should not
examine the conditions associated with credit
granted by other academic communities for that
credit was granted according to the prevailing
standards of that community and they might be
different from those of the community. If what
might be deemed the obtaining of unfair advantage
here is the norm in another situation and therefore
not unfair there, it follows that allowing the
student not to obtain credit under those
circumstances would not unfairly disadvantage the
other University of Virginia students to any greater
extent than would accepting credit from another
school that required less work than would be
required here. (4) A student has stolen property
within the geographic limits of Albemarle County.

University Property

Limiting the sanction of dismissal for stealing to
stealing in Albemarle County would fully protect
University property and in most cases the property
that students bring within the immediate sphere of
University concern; i.e., the places where its
students study and live. It would also advance the
University's legitimate interest in protecting the
property of merchants who serve the University
community. Beyond its immediate environs the
University has no unique interest in the protection
of property and therefore should not attempt to
apply its unique powers against those who might
take such property. Moreover, since the legal
propriety of the University's exercise of its special
power would seem to vary on accordance with the
relationship between the circumstances surrounding
the punishable act and a specific area of
University concern, such a limitation would lessen
the possibility that the entire system might be
legally invalidated because it attempted to bring
too great an area within its scope. As a practical
matter, selection of "the boundaries of Albemarle
County" as the outer limits of the University's
special concern with protecting property from
student theft provides and facilitates
administrative enforcement.

I do not believe that so limiting the offence of
stealing would in any way lessen the unique
presumption a University student may now have in
regard to his trustworthiness with the property of
others. Nor, in my opinion, would such a limitation
encourage students to steal outside Albemarle
County.