Jaeyoon & Ian

Jaeyoon & Ianfor student voice in honor

a plan for a more representative honor


This is where we’d like to talk about our experience with the honor system at the University of Virginia. And not about when we joined Honor, not about which roles we’ve filled. Rather, we want to talk about what our experience has taught us about ourselves, the system, and about the ideals that it claims to uphold.

One of the most frequently touted phrases in the Honor Committee offices on the fourth floor of Newcomb Hall states that the honor system at our school is about more than violations of academic integrity; that it is an important task of Honor as an institution to reinforce the greater ideals that matter to each and every stu-dent. On this point, we certainly agree, although with the qualification that the students who work on cases for the honor system—the “support officers” and the representatives on the Committee—cannot pretend to any greater ownership of those ideals than any other student on Grounds on the basis of their involvement.

Yet there is one important sense in which support officers and Committee repre-sentatives grapple with the challenge of honor in a way unique to their experience. The most vulnerable intersection of the honor system and honor as an ideal is not to be found in the Committee’s efforts toward “education”; it is in the attitudes taken by students involved with the system toward the other students in our com-munity, especially those who are reported for lying, cheating, or stealing. And in this regard, we have not done justice to precisely what we hold up as our most cherished ideal: honor.

for a more representative honor

At the beginning of each academic year, Vice President Pat Lampkin reminds all sup-port officers of the most serious responsibility with which they are charged, namely, of treating the students reported to the Honor Committee with the empathy and the respect that they deserve. And, as Ms. Lampkin explains, that involves never losing sight of the fact that it could be any one of us in the seat of the student being investi-gated or tried for a potential honor offense.

Our experience with the honor system has, too many times, fallen short of this expectation. We think, for example, of one of the weekly support officer meetings last semester, during which the room broke open with laughter in response to a ca-sual joke about the circumstances of an investigated student. We think also of one pre-trial conference, the hearing intended to ensure the fundamental fairness of tri-als, in which an accused student’s own counsel suppressed an argument in defense of the student’s case—because the counsel already believed that the student was guilty.

To be sure, these are neither daily occurrences nor expressive of the convictions of the students working for the honor system. But there is an accepted culture on the fourth floor of Newcomb in which such instances slip by too easily, unacknowledged and without consequence. We say this in no way from an outside view, absolved of complicity: we, too, have shared in the jokes; we, too, have made judgments too soon about the guilt and innocence of accused students.

(continued...)


Our aim here is not to vilify our fellow students who do approach the work of the honor system with earnest intentions. The problem is not with the individuals; it is a broader understanding of involvement with the honor system as a reflection on the character and worth of those involved. The problem has to do with the perception of the senior support officer position as a stepping-stone to candidacy for the Honor Committee. It has to do with the tying-together of the position of Honor Committee Chair with the laurels of residence in 37 West Lawn and a personal office in Newcomb Hall.

Our experience has taught us that student self-governance of the honor system is a critical good, for all it contributes to the identity of the University of Virginia. It expresses an implicit trust in the current student generation from all of the stake-holders in the University; it makes possible a culture of rich discussion and action by the students with regard to ethical principles; and, indeed, it offers opportuni-ties for meaningful and challenging work to those who are directly involved.

But we have also learned that this notion of student self-governance fails to fulfill its promise—in fact, actively breeds the kinds of issues that we have discussed above—when the “student” in the phrase comes to mean only those students who are selected to be support officers or Committee representatives and not the stu-dent body as a whole.

And so our ideas for achieving the kind of cultural change that we would like to see center on the following aim: to restore the voices of students—that is, of all stu-dents—to the honor system. Students defining for themselves the kind of commu-nity that this place ought to be and determining the best means by which to realize it—that’s what honor at the University of Virginia has always been about. We be-lieve in a form of representation in the Honor Committee that truly reaches beyond the chalk-poster-Facebook campaigns, one supported by concrete mechanisms that hold the Committee accountable to the full spectrum of meanings that honor has for the students of our school.

If what we have said about our experience with the honor system speaks to some part of your own, we ask that you read our proposals for moving forward in the pag-es that follow. And if you agree with our aims and our methods by which to reach them: please vote for Jaeyoon and Ian to serve as your representatives on the Honor Committee in the elections this spring.

Respectfully,Jaeyoon & Ian


the plan1. Towards a more representative honorEmpowering the student body and restoring representative leadership

2. Giving meaning to honorExploring a multi-sanction system and rethinking honor and the community

3. For a more empathic honor systemA change in attitude and preventing conflicts of interest

Towards a more representative honor system The central aim of our candidacy is to bring the honor system better in line with the opinions of the student body. As representatives, we will work to give greater weight to the full spectrum of student voice on the honor system and to hold the Honor Committee accountable to its primary purpose: representing the interests and attitudes of the current student generation. To this end, we hope to empower student ownership of the honor system and to restore a culture of representative leadership.


Empowering the student bodyIn order to give greater weight to student body opinion, we will establish concrete mechanisms for greater self-governance of the honor system by the student body.

The Self-Governance Amendments: This election, students will be given the opportunity to vote on three referenda, two of which would amend the Honor Committee Constitu-tion to create a more representative and accountable honor system. The third will provide the Honor Committee with student body opinion on a crucial aspect of the system.

(1) The first amendment would require the Honor Committee to con-vene a bi-annual popular assembly. Such an assembly would take the form of multiple conventions over the course of the fall semester, which would culminate in a forum intended for the presentation of student-led proposals regarding changes to the honor system. The amendment would provide students an opportunity to engage with each other and their elected representatives on the state of the honor system and to act on the issues that are important to the community.

(2) The second amendment would require the Honor Committee to draft constitutional amendments for consideration by the student body should non-binding questions of student opinion receive a majority of the votes in an election. The amendment would hold the Honor Com-mittee accountable as representatives of the student body and ensure


that students can, when they so choose, lead changes to the system.

(3) The third is a non-binding question of student opinion on the most controversial element of the honor system, the “single sanction.” This is the policy of the Honor Committee that mandates expulsion for any student found guilty of an honor offense. If we are to ensure that the policies of the Committee indeed embody the interests of the current student generation, we must be certain that its sanctioning practices, whatever they may be, reflect the will of the student body.

Should these referenda pass, we—as the authors of all three and as rep-resentatives on the Honor Committee—would work to ensure their full and faithful implementation.

Direct Election of Executive Committee Representatives: In order to ensure that the Honor Committee best represents the opin-ions of the student body, we would propose an amendment to Article III, Section 2 of the Honor Committee Constitution, which would give students the power to directly elect the Chair, Vice Chair for Commu-nity Relations and Vice Chair for Education. Under the current Consti-tution, the Honor Committee elects these positions internally, behind closed doors and without input from the student body. Expanding the electoral power of the student body would ensure greater accountability on the part of our elected representatives and contribute to a more repre-sentative honor system.

Restoring representative leadershipIn addition to empowering the student body, we hope to bring about a serious cultural shift among the representatives on the Honor Committee—one that rede-fines the representative-constituent relationship and places a greater emphasis on student ownership of the honor system. Beyond the elections, there is currently no precedent for systematic, direct efforts to make policy decisions based on the opin-ions of the broader student body. The honor system should not be left solely in the hands of the 27 elected representatives of the Honor Committee.

Monthly Honor Caucuses: Currently, the only consistent opportunity for students to engage with their representatives in a formal capacity is a brief “community con-cerns” session during the Sunday night open Committee meetings in the trial room of Newcomb Hall, which is rarely attended. As representa-tives, we will work to create school-specific (e.g., College of Arts and Sci-ences, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, etc.) honor caucuses through which students may regularly address their elected Honor rep-resentatives. Opening direct lines of communication between students and representatives will hold the Honor Committee accountable to its central purpose: representing the interests and attitudes of the current student generation. The honor caucuses would be hosted locally by the elected representatives of each school and open to all interested students on a monthly basis.


Monthly Representative Reports: In conjunction with the honor caucuses, elected representatives should be required to compile monthly reports to be presented at open meet-ings of the Honor Committee that address school-specific concerns. Elected representatives should be required to actively engage with their constituents and to bring their thoughts to open meetings of the Honor Committee.

Together, the honor caucuses and monthly representative reports would institutionalize a greater culture of student self-governance of the honor system—one that encourages Committee representatives to better value and respond to discourse, debate and student-led change. The responsi-bility of representation must not end with elections. It takes more than Facebook profile platforms and a handful of roundtable discussions to effectively respond to the opinions of the student body.

Giving meaning to honorAll students have been entrusted with a profound responsibility. To give meaning to Honor, to be its stewards—as we are so often enjoined—demands that each generation of students ensures that its own values are reflected in the system to which it is bound. That today’s honor system is representative of the student body is uncertain. Inflexible support of or opposition to the “single sanction”—the Honor Committee’s policy of expulsion for any student found guilty of an honor offense—has, for too long, prevented meaningful discussions about the broader implications and workings of honor at the University.


Exploring a multi-sanction honor systemWe believe that one of the greatest obstacles to a truly meaningful discussion of the single- versus multi-sanction issue has been the lack of viable alternative propos-als to the current system. In order to further the issue on this important issue, we have drafted two potential models of a multi-sanction system for consideration by the student body.

The Jury Panel Multi-Sanction System: The first of two potential multi-sanction systems, this model would allow the jury panel to both determine the verdict of honor trials and impose sanctions including, but not limited to, expulsion from the Uni-versity.

The Sanctions Panel Multi-Sanction System: The second model would create a panel consisting of five rotating Honor Committee representatives who would, following a finding of guilt by a jury panel, choose from a list of potential sanctions up to, but not in-cluding, expulsion from the University. The power to impose the sanc-tion of expulsion would lie only with the jury panel at trial.

Contact Jaeyoon and Ian for drafts of the By-laws that would implement each of these systems.

The following pages provide a detailed flow chart of two multi-sanc-tion systems for consideration by the student body >>

Rethinking honor and the communityIt hardly needs be said that honor at the University extends far beyond the adju-dication of reported offenses. However, a clearer distinction must be drawn be-tween the case processing duties of the Honor Committee and the role of honor in the student experience. The Committee is indeed charged with the responsibility of educating the student body when it comes to the former, that is, issues of lying, cheating, and stealing. Regarding the ideal, the role of the Committee ought to be providing avenues for the students themselves to think about and to give meaning to honor.

Revising Education: The Vice Chair for Education should be responsible solely for providing all students with information and resources regarding (1) the practices of the honor system related to reported offenses and (2) the standards of the community with respect to lying, cheating, and stealing. Specifically, the efforts of the VCE should be directed less toward the acquisition of “Honor” merchandise (such as mouse pads and koozies) and more to-ward target outreach efforts for communities traditionally less affiliated with the Honor Committee.

Revising Community Relations: Toward the goal of reinvigorating meaningful reflection on the role of honor in the student experience, the Vice Chair for Community Rela-tions should, in addition to her traditional responsibilities, lead efforts to engage students on two core issues. Namely, the general concept of honor as an ideal and the ethical implications of our honor system.


!

4

2

1. the offensea student commits an act of lying, cheating or stealing

2. the reporta community member re-ports the student to the honor committee

3. investigationhonor committee investi-gators gather information about the alleged offense

start here

G4. the triala jury panel hears the student’s case

accusation

5. preliminary deliberationsthe jury panel evaluates the act, knowledge and significance of the alleged honor offense

6. guilty verdictthe jury panel finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stu-dent committed a significant act of lying, cheating or stealing

verdict

report

7. secondary deliberationsafter a guilty verdict, the jury panel will be asked to determine whether or not the student’s honor offense demands his or her expulsion

8. alternative sanctionif the student’s honor offense does not demand his or her expulsion, the jury panel will determine an alternative sanction

expulsion

a

the jury panel multi-sanction system how it works

The Jury Panel Multi-Sanction System: The first of two potential multi-sanction systems, this model would allow the jury panel to both determine the verdict of honor trials and impose sanctions including, but not limited to, expulsion from the University.

The possible sanctions:

ExpulsionThe student is asked to permanently leave the University and is barred from future readmission

Two-semester suspensionThe student is immediately withdrawn from classes and completes a two-semester leave of absence

One-semester suspensionThe student is immediately withdrawn from classes and completes a one-semester leave of absence

Withdrawn from semester The student is immediately withdrawn from classes and regains student status the following semester

!

4

2

1. the offensea student commits an act of lying, cheating or stealing

2. the reporta community member re-ports the student to the honor committee

3. investigationhonor committee investi-gators gather information about the alleged offense

start here

G4. the triala jury panel hears the student’s case

accusation

5. preliminary deliberationsthe jury panel evaluates the act, knowledge and significance of the alleged honor offense

6. guilty verdictthe jury panel finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stu-dent committed a significant act of lying, cheating or stealing

verdict

report

7. secondary deliberationsafter a guilty verdict, the jury panel will be asked to determine whether or not the student’s honor offense demands his or her expulsion

8. sanctions hearingif the student’s honor offense does not demand his or her expulsion, the sanction will be determined by a panel of rotating honor com-mittee representatives

expulsion

a

the sanctions panel multi-sanction system how it worksThe Sanctions Panel Multi-Sanction System: The second model would create a panel consisting of five rotating Honor Com-mittee representatives who would, following a finding of guilt by a jury panel, choose from a list of potential sanctions up to, but not including, expulsion from the University. The power to impose the sanction of expulsion would lie only with the jury panel at trial.

The possible sanctions:

ExpulsionThe student is asked to permanently leave the University and is barred from future readmission

Two-semester suspensionThe student is immediately withdrawn from classes and completes a two-semester leave of absence

One-semester suspensionThe student is immediately withdrawn from classes and completes a one-semester leave of absence

Withdrawn from semester The student is immediately withdrawn from classes and regains student status the following semester

For a more empathic honor systemLet us, for a moment, leave aside the concerns regarding the structure of the Committee, the sanctions of the system, and all the rest. These are our ideas for addressing the single most troubling aspect of the internal workings of our honor system, one in which we, too, have been complicit. Namely, a far too common tendency to forget the respect and the empathy due to fellow students, especially those who have been reported for lying, cheating, or stealing.


A change in attitudeRespect for the dignity of all students who are reported to the Honor Commit-tee must be the foremost consideration of anyone working on investigations and trials. What this entails, specifically, is an unwavering commitment on the part of support officers and Committee representatives to adhere to an understanding of “innocent until proven guilty” for each and every student.

Innocent until proven guilty:Commitment to an “innocent until proven guilty” attitude must become a cornerstone of support officer and Committee representative training. Currently, this phrase is absent from all of the internal resource docu-ments of the Honor Committee. But more importantly, “innocent until proven guilty” is absent from the general understanding of acceptable conduct toward investigated and accused students. If we are to be hon-est with ourselves about living in a “community of trust,” an attitude of trust and respect for all students must precede any other considerations. In fact, such an attitude is a condition of possibility for what support officers are instructed to take as the ultimate aim of investigations and trials—the pursuit of the truth.


Preventing conflicts of interestIn order to minimize bias against investigated and accused students, we will institute the following safeguard measures.

Prohibit Executive Committee representatives, whose duties involve oversight of all active cases, from direct participation in investigatory and adjudicatory roles, such as serving on Investigative Panels or as Trial Chair.

Greater utilization of the Standards Panel and familiarization with the Code of Ethics as part of support officer and Committee representative training.

Creation of a position, to be filled by a representative on the Honor Committee not part of the Executive Committee, to serve as standing Chair of the Standards Panel. The Chair of the Standards Panel should be available to hearing and addressing any issues regarding the Code of Ethics raised by support officers or Committee representatives.


representation by the numbers

the percentage of students who voted in favor of a non-binding resolution asking the Honor Committee to seek alternatives to the “single-sanction”59Our frustration is not necessarily with the fact that a vote in favor of explor-ing alternatives to the single sanction was not acted upon, but instead more generally that an expression of student body opinion was not adequately en-gaged by the Committee. Contrary to the suggestion of the current Chair of the Honor Committee—that “the [2005] Committee could not have done a better job of investigating a multi-sanction system”—we would offer the editorial written by The Cavalier Daily Staff in 2005, which reads: “The ad hoc Committee for the Investigation of the Single Sanction held its first meeting last week, and it appears to be a massive disappointment. The ad hoc committee, formed in the wake of nearly 60 percent of students voting yes on a referendum in the spring elections, has been given an unreasonable mandate by the full Honor Committee. Apparently, the Committee has decided that ‘continue to seek alternatives’ means spending a year doing research instead of building on previous reform efforts.

…Let’s be very clear: The referendum, to which 4,418 students replied in the affirmative, stated the explicit desire that the Honor Committee ‘continue to seek alternatives to the single sanction.’ Anyone who misinterprets that as a request to spend a year doing research on the sanction’s effects must be misguided at best or intentionally deceitful at worst.”

The ad hoc Committee for the Investigation of the Single Sanction was abolished after two years, during which time it did not propose a viable alter-native to a single sanction system for consideration by the student body.



the percentage of students who said that they “support the singlesanction at trial” at the only roundtable event hosted by this year’s committee.38Let us clarify an obscured point: the 60.87% statistic often quoted by the Honor Com-mittee as the percentage of students who said they “support the single sanction” in a 2012 reporting survey included those who responded that they supported the single sanction but “with reservations.”

The Honor Committee’s most recent data point comes from the only roundtable dis-cussion hosted by this year’s Committee, at which only 37.9% of respondents expressed support for the single sanction. Obviously, the results of that event, which was attended by 58 students, are not representative of student body opinion generally. But if roundtable discussions are one of three examples cited by one Committee represen-tative “for students to express concerns or discuss new issues,” why has the Honor Com-mittee done nothing to respond to this piece of information?

the number of Honor Committee candidates in 2014 who The Cavalier Daily reported to be in opposition to the “single sanction”1



the results of the honor committee’s most recent vote (2013) to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot25-1 the student body’s vote (in percentage) against the same

proposal59-41


for a more representative honor

Documents

Jaeyoon & Ian