<p>10is, I typed out a long reply to you last night, and then lost the contents before it posted. I will summarize my thoughts, here. Hopefully I won’t lose this one, too.</p>
<p>I really respect you for serving on the Honor Committee. From other posts, you are clearly a hardworking and dedicated student. I commend you taking time from your rigorous studies to work to better the University.</p>
<p>That said, you make two statements that undermine the current honor system, in my opinion. </p>
<p>First you noted that single sanction will never change because of ALUMNI meddling. If STUDENT self governance is such an overarching principal, why are the alums allowed a say in how the honor code is administered today? The alums should butt out. I attended an event last fall in DC where President Sullivan was the featured speaker. An alum hogged much of the time allotted for Q and A to argue that maintaining the single sanction is THE most important issue facing the University. REALLY?? With the budget challenges, the governance issues, etc., currently facing the University, it is laughable to contend that “single sanction” is even in the top 50 issues facing the school. On top of that, the alumni wasting $25,000 on coffee mugs and other swag exclaiming “save single sanction” is an outrageous interference with student self governance. But it’s tradition they say – well Confederate Flags, segregation and male only were traditions at one time, too. But the school has flourished without them. It would be just fine without the “single sanction,” too.</p>
<p>I am not advocating looking the other way to lying, cheating, or stealing. They should be punished by appropriate sanctionS (emphasis on the plural), after affording the accused due process. That is the problem I see with the proposal to change the composition of the juries. The more severe the punishment, the more critical it is to ensure due process. While I would trust 10is, I am not sure I would trust his peers to always do the right and honorable thing.</p>
<p>Your second comment I found illuminating was: </p>
<p>"[W]e become generally disenchanted with the System as we grow older and see how the System is flawed. The System does not work the way it should and everyone knows it . . . ."</p>
<p>Isn’t the answer to fight to create an honor system at UVa that WILL stand the test of time, one that you will not become disenchanted with? And to fight to modify “single sanction,” if that will help fix the flaws in the system. </p>
<p>89 – no, I am not an alum. I did not get off the OOS waitlist for law school many years ago and had to settle for Northwestern 
But I have been very involved at the University over the past few years. I just don’t accept your impassioned argument that “single sanction” is the heart and soul of UVa, and that without it, one’s diploma would be cheapened. </p>
<p>If you graduated in 1989, you would have attended UVa after the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21. So you are probably aware that using fake ID’s was expressly exempted from the UVa honor code after the drinking age was raised. Accordingly, it is OK under the Honor Code to lie about one’s ability to lawfully purchase and consume alcohol, but it merits expulsion if one runs afoul of the rather complicated definitions of plagiarism in the honor code. To me, that is a wart on the University, not the heart. </p>
<p>Please excuse any typos. I want to post this before I lose it again.</p>