The Single Sanction and Informed Retraction: Today's Multi-Sanction System
Authors: Lillie Lyon (College, 2020) & Stearns Swetnam (Batten, 2020) | February/11/2019
The Honor System’s sanctioning policy is quite simple -- the only possible sanction assigned to a student who is found guilty in a hearing of lying, cheating, or stealing is dismissal from the University. As such, dismissal is referred to as the “single sanction.” Today, the single sanction is an oft-discussed element of the Honor System. That has not, however, always been the case.
The first approximation of an Honor System at U.Va. began in July of 1842 when Professor Henry St. George Tucker proposed that each student pledge on their examinations that they had “derived no assistance” from other sources. [1] It wasn’t until nine years later, in 1851, that records indicate the first student was expelled from the University for an Honor code violation. [1] Documented doubts about the single sanction did not arise until the 1972, when a referendum was placed on the ballot to ascertain support for the single sanction. [2] Despite a 66% majority voting in support of the single sanction, the 1972 referendum marked the beginning of a long series of votes on the subject, stretching into the modern day.
In the period from 1972-2013, twelve constitutional referendums regarding the sanctioning system were placed on the ballot. [2] They ranged in content, some simply asking the student body whether they supported the single sanction, others proposing specific multi-sanction alternatives. [2] None passed the 60% threshold necessary to amend the Honor constitution. [2] Many of the referenda proposed between 1975 and 2002 put forth a version of what later became the Informed Retraction -- a suspension for a student’s first guilty verdict and permanent dismissal for their second.[2]
The first major change came to the sanctioning system in the early 1980s in the form of the Conscientious Retraction. [2] The Conscientious Retraction allows any student who believes they have committed an Honor Offense to come forward of their own volition. If the student does so prior to having reason to believe they may be under suspicion and makes amends with the affected parties, they are able to remain in the Community of Trust with no further repercussions. While still preserving the single sanction at hearing, the Conscientious Retraction provided, for the first time, a path for students who wished to make amends for a mistake to remain at the University.
The next major change to the sanctioning system, called the Informed Retraction, passed in the Spring of 2013. [2] Each student is allowed to make only one Informed Retraction during their time at the University, making it a close approximation to the dual-sanction proposals presented throughout the late 1900s. Essentially, the Informed Retraction provided an opportunity for a reported to student to admit to the act of lying, cheating, or stealing for which they were reported, make amends, and return to the University after taking a two-semester leave of absence. It’s implementation effectively made the Honor System dual-sanction. Over the five years since it was passed, there has been frequent debate about what one Informed Retraction should be able to cover. [3] The most recent reform, passed in the Spring of 2018, created the most expansive version of the Informed Retraction to date. Referred to as “additional admissions,” the new policy allows any student reported to the Honor Committee to take an Informed Retraction for the reported offenses and any additional offenses they wish to admit to.
The most recent assessment by the student body of the Honor sanctioning system was a referendum held in the Spring of 2016. It presented students with two options: maintain the single sanction by voting for Option 1, or allow the Honor Committee to consider alternative sanctions by voting for Option 2. Option 2 received 58.88% of the vote, failing to pass by a 1.12% margin. [4]
Since the vote, an independent commission was established to evaluate the health of the Honor System. In their final report, the Honor Audit Commission (HAC) found the single sanction to be a main point of tension for most students that view the Honor System negatively. [5] The HAC never gave any specific recommendations in regards to sanctioning; however, one of the main recommendations in the report was for the Honor Committee to address specific changes to the single sanction, rather than dealing in obscure “multi-sanction” language. [5] This comment references the fact that a “multi-sanction” system can mean infinite possibilities of sanctions that the Honor System could use. In addition to the HAC’s identification of “multi-sanction” as a nebulous term, it also touched on the general distrust and apathy towards the Honor System as an institution at the University of Virginia. [5] The Honor Committee has taken a number of steps in the past year in order to address the findings of the HAC, one of them being the creation of the Alternative Sanction Working Group. The working group is assessing the problems faced by the current Honor System, developing potential alternative sanctions, and evaluating which problems these ideas may be helpful in addressing.
While the single sanction at hearing has stayed constant, the Honor System’s sanctioning has changed drastically over the last 50 years. The Honor Committee is constantly working to better meet the needs of the student body, and relies on student participation to ensure its continuing evolution in accordance with the student body’s vision for the Community of Trust.
References
[1] Barefoot, C. (2008, Spring). The Evolution of Honor: Enduring Principle, Changing Times. Virginia Magazine. Retrieved from:http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_evolution_of_honor#1825
[2] Gard, Jr., S. R. (2016, Summer). Modern Honor. Virginia Magazine. Retrieved from: http://digital.uvamagazine.org/articles/modern-honor/
[3] Gard, Jr., S. R. (2018, Summer). Honor Allows a Fuller Confession. Retrieved from: http://uvamagazine.org/articles/honor_allows_a_fuller_confession
[4] UVA University Board of Elections (n.d.). Archives [website]. Retrieved from: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5383cNu78ZKBwDVSWikBzcwC
[5] Honor Audit Commission. (2018). 2017-2018 Report. Retrieved from: https://honor.virginia.edu/sites/honor.virginia.edu/files/HAC%20Report_Final.pdf