Letters of interest to the Law School community may be sent to editor@lawweekly.org. Letters may be published at the discretion of the Editorial Board and are subject to editing for grammar, style, and clarity, but not content or viewpoint. The views expressed reflect the opinion of the writer, and not of the Law Weekly.
Andy Chambers, CLAS ‘22
Honor Committee Chair
Last October, Virginia Law Weekly wrote of possible changes to the University’s Honor System. With the help of one of your two dedicated Honor Representatives, the article described the system as it exists and a potential change: reduce the Single Sanction from expulsion to suspension while extending the Informed Retraction further into the case process. I write this article in response to that piece with two ambitions—to describe the status of those proposed changes and to respond to the arguments in favor of that proposed change.
As of the time of writing, that proposal has fallen over 20% short in multiple votes to meet the threshold necessary for Committee endorsement and placement on the ballot in the spring. Among the representatives in opposition, the entire Executive Committee—the body of five individuals elected from among the Committee and charged with carrying out the Committee’s functions—unanimously opposes these changes and has voted accordingly. This same Executive Committee supported multi-sanction options in initial debates and would happily see a progressive change to our Honor System. The objections to this proposal rest in a simple frustration that it does not address any of the problems the system faces.
The article claimed, “we cannot simply excise from the community students who make mistakes, especially since students come to the university from a wide range of backgrounds.” While a noble sentiment, holding a wide range of students to a common standard is the mission of a University in its educational aspirations. As a first-generation college student who attended public school in South Georgia, I took the same calculus exams as my peers who attended Exeter. A Virginia degree is valued because it is a standard met—how could those standards vary based on where one calls home? Education is an individual pursuit that requires charting your path, but the University’s role is to establish a shared destination. Holding University students to a high standard is not only acceptable, but it is necessary for any community that wants better for itself.
The article further declared that “students deserve a second chance.” This was the rallying cry of the Informed Retraction in 2013. That reform extended the Conscientious Retraction to after the report, when a student has the Reporter testimony and their preliminary evidence. For the last nine years, the Honor System afforded students a second chance. In this same period, we’ve witnessed decreasing case numbers, increasing critique, and declining buy-in. The IR already fell short of what it promised to do. Notwithstanding, the Informed Retraction affords a second chance to those who made a mistake and admit as much. In all my conversations with students taking IRs, their feedback has been that of restoration. We excitedly welcome students back after their IR, and those students return with an integral understanding of and pedigree in integrity. This change would provide that same second chance to those who commit Honor Offenses and then blatantly deny their actions until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by their peers. A softer sanction is not restoration, it is flouting the University’s ideals.
Beyond the sanction, the article incorrectly described the Informed Retraction as a plea. To clarify, the Honor System is not a miniature legal system. We have no pleas nor is there negotiation for lesser sanctions. When one joins the University, they opt into our Honor System. The Honor System is a collection of shared values with a Committee of students charged with defending it, not a host of laws imposed by the land. No one is born into the Honor System, they make the knowing decision to join a Community of Trust. Extending the IR period to the day of Hearing results from a fundamentally flawed view of what the IR is. It is an extension of the Conscientious Retraction – an opportunity for honest recommitment in a community that values honesty. IRs do not exist to dole out punishment to students who face weak cases. Extending this period provides nothing to honest students hoping to recommit to the Community of Trust. Instead, it protects the student gaming their chances of a guilty verdict under the false flag of extended due process.
This referendum solves problems the Committee doesn’t have. In its wake, it ignores pressing issues. The introduction to that article correctly pointed out that “for several decades, various Honor Committees have attempted to alter the University’s sanctioning regime.” Previous Committees fought for these changes while staring down the wide range of forms an Honor Offense can take. Under our current system and the proposed changes, a first-year undergraduate who glanced at their neighbor's quiz paper could face the same penalty as a candidate who plagiarized entire chapters of their dissertation. Our system provides no bandwidth to handle these discrepancies but multi-sanction options do. Never once in the Honor Committee’s 180-year existence has the solution to unequal violations rested in removing the sanction shared by every judiciary at this University – it rested in adding new options and an ability to flex with the times and the situation.
The Committee faces issues ranging from panel nullification to inequities in the IR to community buy-in. The proposed change as described solves none of those issues or the problems it claims to address. Committee members lauded this plan for its simplicity and easy-to-understand language. Its merits cease there. This plan is little more than an activity that preys on ignorance or apathy. Where it stops being ineffective, it is destructive. A philosophically fraught Honor System that abandons its original high bar only to provide inconsistent forgiveness regardless of one’s recommitment to the Community of Trust is doomed to fail. I eagerly wanted change for this system and I hope future Committees may enact sensible progress forward for our community, but this is not it.
---
arc2fkq@virginia.edu