University of Virginia Library

Vote Single Sanction

Much has appeared in recent editions of
The Cavalier Daily concerning the Honor
System and the "advisory referendum" on the
single sanction of permanent dismissal for
Honor violations. While the results of the
student poll conducted last Spring by the
Honor Committee are inconclusive, we feel
the resultant debate is pointless; through next
week's referendum the student body will have
an opportunity to make known its sentiments
on the sanction question.

Proponents of a change in sanction, which
include at least three members of the Honor
Committee itself, have argued strongly in
favor of some form of graduated penalty
system. While graduated penalties appear at
first glance to answer many students'
complaints with the current Honor System,
we think the implications such a change
would entail, rather than improving the
system, would threaten its future existence at
the University.

Under current procedures, when a case
comes before the Honor Committee, the
members sitting at the trial must make two
decisions: (1) Did the accused student
knowingly and willfully commit the violation
with which he has been charged and, (2) if so,
does the current student population consider
that act to be so reprehensible that it warrants
dismissal?

As the length of most trials indicates, it
often is not easy for the Committee to reach a
decision on these two questions. Committee
members have stated that motives, mitigating
circumstances, and intent are all considered
before deciding if the accused actually
committed a reprehensible Honor violation.
Since the committee uses no system of
precedent, each case is examined individually,
on its own merit. This is as it should be.

If a change to graduated penalties was to
be adopted, the Committee would be
concerned not only with its original two
decisions but a third as well: if a violation was
committed which is considered reprehensible,
how reprehensible was it and which penalty
should be imposed? In order to hand down
the appropriate penalty, the Committee
would have to consider its decision in light of
other decisions in other cases, thus
necessitating a complex system of precedent.
Cases no longer would be decided on an
individual basis; the decision in one
"landmark ruling" would have to be followed
in similar cases.

The bureaucratic and administrative
functioning such a situation would require
would make the operation of a
student-operated Honor System impossible.
The Committee, which now finds it difficult
to determine if an act was reprehensible,
would have to look back through prior cases
to decide how reprehensible the violation is
and what penalty to impose. The general
principle about lying, cheating and stealing
would have to be closely defined through
precedent, thereby turned into a strict set of
rules and not principle. The Honor System
should not be merely a set of rules.

Other shortcomings would also exist under
a graduated penalty system. Proponents of
the change claim that student support for the
Honor System would be increased if penalties
tailored to the violations were possible. This is
wishful thinking.

Under current procedures, a student
should accuse another only if he is convinced
that the accused has committed an offense
which is an Honor violation and which,
therefore, merits dismissal. What would be the
reaction of a student who accused another of
a violation, hoping that a semester suspension
would be imposed, if the Committee decided
upon expulsion? We suggest that he would
refuse to accuse future violators for fear that
an unwarranted penalty would be imposed in
that case also. This chilling effect would
lessen, not increase, student support for the
Honor System.

Students at the University live under a
mutual agreement that they will not lie, cheat
or steal, nor tolerate such acts. It is up to the
student body and, in the long run, the
Committee to determine which acts are so
reprehensible that they violate the spirit of
this agreement. Acts which do not warrant
dismissal should not come under the
jurisdiction of the Honor Committee and,
therefore, should not be provided for by
adoption of a system of graduated penalties.
Vote "FOR" the single sanction.