The “Intolerable Clause” And Lost Honor

The lead editorial in today’s UVa Cavalier Daily decries what it calls “an intolerable clause,” a frequently proposed revision of the honor code that would make it mandatory for students who witness an honor violation to file a complaint.

In the past the UVa honor code has included this mandatory requirement of reporting honor violations, but it does not now, and the Cavalier Daily wants to keep it that way.

I am tempted to say that the CD’s arguments are so specious as to be funny (actually, I just did say it), but on a deeper level they reveal the confusion that results when old-fashioned fundamental principles such as honor collide with the modern relativist, non-judgmental sensibility.

Here are some choice excerpts from the editorial:

The current situation is not ideal: In the latest Honor Survey, released last April, only 36 percent of students said that they would initiate a case if it were a “clear Honor violation,” with the other 64 percent saying “no,” “would depend on the person involved” or “not sure.” Even more discouraging: 194 participants in the Honor survey said that they had witnessed an Honor offense — and only four said that they initiated a case.

The editorial notes, with rare understatement, that “[i]n a supposed ‘community of trust,’ such results are extremely disappointing,” but it goes on to say that requiring mandatory reporting of honor violations would be unworkable because it would be unenforceable. There apparently is so much reluctance to report that a new code provision would be ineffective. But that is not the editorial’s strongest objection.

Even if one believes that a failure to report an honor offense is wrong, students shouldn’t be punished for merely declining to take action. While it may help eliminate some of the reluctance some have in initiating honor proceedings, refusing to report an honor violation isn’t something for which the Honor Committee or the Judiciary Committee should sanction a student.

Unwillingness to initiate an honor case, while unfortunate and possibly a blight on the community of trust, are [sic] not cause for punishment. The community of trust is only as strong as the ideals of its members, and these ideals must be cultivated and fostered, not forced upon people.

Merely? If the “community of trust is only as strong as the ideals of its members,” and those ideals shouldn’t be forced on anyone, why have an honor code at all?

Say What? (4)

  1. Dean Esmay September 13, 2003 at 4:39 am | | Reply

    It makes them feel good to have an honor code, and also, they can claim to have one without pointing out that it’s a meaningless shell.

  2. Jack September 14, 2003 at 2:23 am | | Reply

    Wasn’t it UVa where a prof checked up on his student’s research papers discovering many had plagerized them? The students claimed the prof had violated the spirit of the honor code by not trusting them.

  3. Andrew Lazarus September 14, 2003 at 11:40 am | | Reply

    I don’t know the history of UVa’s honor code, but Princeton’s arose from a bargain between the faculty and the students at the end of the 19th Century. Contrary to the story that academic dishonesty is a recent phenomenon, it was apparently frequent, well-organized, and viewed as part of a challenge of wits.

    The trade, of course, was that faculty would not proctor exams, and that students would not tolerate cheating. When students adopt the position of the Cavalier Daily, the solution is simple: the faculty must resume proctoring.

    Incidentally, I caught a number of brazen instances of cheating in my years teaching.

  4. John Rosenberg September 14, 2003 at 12:00 pm | | Reply

    Hi Andy,

    My favorite cheating episode was once when a grad student who was assisting in one of my lecture classes had himself written, several years before, a term paper turned in by a student, who had made an unfortunate selection from his fraternity’s file.

Say What?