University of Virginia Library

One Sanction

A third problem is that there is
only one sanction for committing
intolerable conduct at this
University, and that is permanent
dismissal. Now as a criminal lawyer
I do not believe much in the system
that does not allow for the concept
of rehabilitation. On the other
hand, I would argue that this
system, while not giving a student a
second chance, does not necessarily
prevent his or her rehabilitation.
Indeed, most penal studies tend to
indicate that character reformation
is better carried out somewhere else
than where the act took place. Is
there, then, any other justification
for dismissal as a single sanction? In
my view there is one, and that is
the very close relation between the
severe sanction and the scope of the
system.

As I understand the present
system, it applies only to
Charlottesville and Albemarle
County or anywhere you represent
yourself as a member of
this University community. It
covers lying, cheating, and stealing.
I want to go on record as saying it
does not cover whether or not you
drink, whether or not you use
drugs, whether or not you attend
classes the requisite number of
hours, or whether or not you have
complied with other social and
administrative regulations of the
University. I would not support it if
it did.

In the 1970's I contend the
scope of the Honor System should
extend only to those acts that a
consensus of you deem to be
intolerable and not social and
administrative regulations. The
inquiry should be into conduct that
is intolerable, not conduct that is
passingly bad or maybe even good.
The comparison between the
operation of the Honor System at
this school and the honor systems
at other schools where thy attempt
to include social and administrative
regulations is, I think, a testimony
to the wisdom of keeping the scope
of the system very narrow indeed. I
would argue that when the system
is narrow in scope, then and only
then is the single sanction justified.