University of Virginia Library

The Honor System

Single Penalty Meets Criticism

Fifth In A Series

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

If a student is found guilty of a
breach of honor, he must leave the
University forever. The single sanction
of dismissal has been one of
the most controversial aspects of
the system for many years.

The severity and the finality of
the penalty for a breach of honor
have caused it to be the center of
much discussion and examination,
especially in recent years. The
criticism of the single sanction, the
scope of the system, the secrecy of
the proceedings, the composition of
the Honor Committee and procedural
criticisms have all added up to
a strong impetus for past committees
to study and re-evaluate each
area of the system.

At the center of most controversies
is the single sanction. Critics
point to the mark that dismissal
puts on a student who has been
found guilty of an offense. They
argue that this stigma follows them
throughout life often keeping them
from getting into certain schools,
receiving a government job by
passing security clearances, and
affects their earning power in
pursuing a vocation.

Other critics of the single
sanction have argued that by its
very nature it denies a student a
second chance and rehabilitation.
Some students feel that if a student
has been found guilty of an honor
offense, he would never be dishonorable
again if allowed to
return. In other words, he would
have learned his lesson.

Honor Committee members, including
some on the present one,
have often questioned the value of
the single dismissal system. They
have noted that to allow a student
to return after committing a breach
in the system would necessarily
taint "the community of mutual
trust."

Graduated Penalties

A member of the present
committee has argued that to have
some system of graduated penalties
might allow the Honor Committee
not to face up to the difficult
decisions about the possible guilt of
the accused that must be made.

That member argues that the
single sanction insures that the
accused will have the benefit of a
reasonable doubt in every case.
With a lesser penalty the
Committee might be more apt to
dismiss an accused for lesser
evidence because they realized that
he would be able to return in a
semester or a year a compromise
verdict.

Reasonable Doubt

According to members of the
Honor Committee only when the
guilt of the accused has been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is he dismissed. Under a penalty of
lesser degree, it is not unreasonable
to think that a student might be
dismissed when there was "a gray
area" of doubt.

Past Committee representatives
have also felt that lesser penalties
would overly tempt the student to
lie, cheat, or steal, knowing that he
would eventually be allowed to
return to the University. Many
students have felt that a system of
graduated penalties would rob the
concept of honor of all of its
credibility.

Another perplexing question
that faces students is how far
should the system extend. Whether
to tie the scope of the system to
just the academic areas of the
University or to keep it more as a
"complete" system of honor has
been debated ever since the beginnings
of the concept of an honor
system in 1842.

The scope of the system is
inextricably tied to what the
current student generation thinks.
Many areas such as gambling and
drinking, used to be part of the
system, but are no longer covered
today.

A vociferous opponent to many
aspects of the system, Rhodes
Scholar Pieter Shannkkan, commented
that "there is only one area
where agreement is possible, and
where we should take action
because other large communities,
like the State of Virginia and the
United States, do not: academic
practices.

"Cheating on exams, plagiarism
and similar offenses are not covered
(by other authorities); unlike lying
about your age, cheating on an
exam injures this community far
more directly and significantly than
it does any other. So the academic
area alone should be the subject of
our concern."

Other students just as strongly
oppose the idea of limiting the
system just to academic areas. They
point to the "spirit of honor"
which pervades all aspects of a
man's life. For many students and
past honor committees, a lie outside
the academic sphere of the
University is just as dishonorable as