Sarah Walsh '23
Editing Editor
We’re back, baby. If you’re seeing news about an Honor referendum and feeling a sense of déjà vu,[1]you’re not alone. Just last year, UVA students voted—by an overwhelming margin—to pass an Honor amendment reducing the University’s single sanction of expulsion to a two-semester leave of absence. Now, there’s a new Honor referendum on the table. This time, students will be voting on whether to replace the single-sanction system, which has existed for almost 200 years, with a multi-sanction system.
The referendum[2]—which is effectively a student body ratification of the updated Honor constitution that was passed within the Honor Committee on February 12—outlines a number of changes to the current Honor system, including the expansion of the possible sanctions that students would face if convicted of an Honor violation.[3] If passed, it would be the first successful multi-sanction legislation since the Honor system was first introduced in 1842. The referendum will need both 10 percent of the student body and three-fifths of the voting population to vote in its favor to pass, and that student body includes Virginia Law students. As you’ve probably guessed, based on the number of SBA campaign posters and smiley face stickers currently floating around the Law School, it’s currently UVA election season. So, with the time for voting already upon us, here’s what you need to know about the new and improved Honor referendum.
Changes Under the Proposed System
The biggest change proposed by the referendum is the replacement of the current single-sanction system with a multi-sanction one. Under the new constitution, sanctions would be applied on a case-by-case basis, rather than under a “one-size-fits-all” approach. The possible sanctions that students could face would include (but not be limited to) education, amends, the aforementioned two-semester leave of absence, and expulsion.
While this does mean that the proposal brings back expulsion only a year after students effectively voted to eliminate it, James Hornsby ’24 emphasized that expulsion would only be available as a sanction in an extremely limited capacity and would be reserved for especially severe Honor offenses. As the Law School’s only delegate to this year’s Honor Constitutional Convention,[4] Hornsby helped draft the multi-sanction system proposals that the Committee used to craft the referendum. He explained that one of the major changes included within the referendum—aside from the expansion of possible sanctions—is the inclusion of a new “permanent sanctions” question within the guilt-determination process.
Under the current system, a panel for guilt determines whether an alleged offense meets the definition of an Honor violation and whether the accused student is guilty of committing the offense. The new system would require the student portion of the panel for guilt—which would be made up of five Honor Committee members and seven randomly selected students—to decide whether the offense at issue calls for expulsion or other permanent sanctions, including transcript notations. As Hornsby explains it, if less than five of the seven students on the panel vote for a permanent sanction, then those sanctions—including expulsion—will effectively be placed in “a glass box,” unavailable as possible sanctions for that particular offense. If the five-sevenths threshold were met, then the new sanctions panel—composed of the five Committee members on the guilt panel—would be able to hand down those sanctions, but they would not be required to do so.
Hornsby also highlighted that another major change proposed by the referendum involves what are called “Informed Retractions” (IRs). Introduced under the old system, where the single sanction for Honor violations was expulsion, IRs were meant to be a way to reward students for taking responsibility for their actions and making amends to the UVA community. If a student filed an IR prior to their Honor trial, they would be rewarded with a lesser sanction for their actions: a two-semester leave of absence.
If that lesser sanction sounds familiar, it should: Last year’s Honor referendum reduced the single sanction from expulsion to that two-semester leave of absence. The problem is that it forgot to address IRs when it did so, effectively making it so that filing an IR is now equivalent to entering into a guilty plea for an Honor violation—except that students filing IRs also have to “make amends” (write a letter apologizing for their transgressions), meaning that in return for owning up to their mistakes, they actually get to do more work than they would otherwise. Since a system that punishes students for being honest and trying to make amends is deranged, the proposed system would make it so that a student who filed an IR would automatically have any kind of permanent sanction taken off the table for them once their case went to the sanctions panel.
Why We Need the New System
Now, is the system proposed by this year’s Honor referendum perfect? No. But as Hornsby describes it, “It’s a good step in the right direction.” A single-sanction system, which ignores the severity of alleged offenses and the context in which they were committed, inherently lacks the compassion and fairness that all students deserve. It ignores the permanent impact that an Honor conviction can have on a student’s life, affecting not only their future job and graduate school prospects, but also their ability to graduate from the University altogether. A student found guilty of committing an Honor violation is ineligible to receive financial aid during their leave of absence, stands to lose University housing and scholarship eligibility, and—if they’re an international student—can lose their visa status if sanctioned. Add in the fact that data collected on the Honor system has indicated disproportionately high reporting and sanction rates for African Americans, Asian Americans, and international students,[5] and it becomes clear that the current system needs to change. While the proposed multi-sanction system won’t magically solve all these problems, it at least recognizes that the problems exist and offers a fairer, more compassionate Honor system in response. At the very least, it’s a good step in the right direction.
---
saw8rc@virginia.edu
[1] Shoutout to Olivia Rodrigo, the voice of a generation.
[2] For more information on the referendum and how the proposed system would work, see Ashley Mosby, Honor Committee Sends New Constitution Outlining Multi-Sanction System to Student Body, Cavalier Daily (Feb. 14, 2023), https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2023/02/honor-committee-sends-new-constitution-outlining-multi-sanction-system-to-student-body and Ashley Mosby, Decades in the Making: A Closer Look at the Proposed Multi-Sanction System, Cavalier Daily (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2023/02/decades-in-the-making-a-closer-look-at-the-proposed-multi-sanction-system.
[3] Defined as a significant act, committed with knowledge, of lying, cheating, or stealing.
[4] See Sarah Walsh, Organization Named After Lying Will Represent Law School in Honor Convention, Virginia Law Weekly, Oct. 26, 2022, at 1 if you’re interested in learning about some of the fun lil’ shenanigans that surrounded the Law School’s involvement in the Convention.
[5] Riley Walsh, Geremia Di Maro & Erica Sprott, Report Shows Disproportionate Honor Violation Reports of Asian Americans, International Students in Recent Years, Cavalier Daily (Feb. 18, 2019), https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2019/02/report-shows-disproportionate-honor-violation-reports-of-asian-americans-international-students-in-recent-years?ct=content_open&cv=cbox_latest. See also https://report.honor.virginia.edu/#1; https://transparency.honor.virginia.edu/.