UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
STUDENT AFFAIRS AND ATHLETICS
COMMITTEE
February 22, 2013
STUDENT AFFAIRS AND ATHLETICS COMMITTEE
Friday, February 22, 2013
9:45 - 10:45 a.m.
Auditorium of The Harrison Institute/
Small Special Collections Library
Committee Members:
Allison Cryor DiNardo, Chair
A. Macdonald Caputo
Hunter E. Craig
Marvin W. Gilliam Jr.
Bobbie G. Kilberg
George Keith Martin
Timothy B. Robertson
Linwood H. Rose
Hillary A. Hurd
Helen E. Dragas, Ex-officio
Allison S. Linney, Consulting Member
Dennis R. Proffitt, Faculty
Consulting Member
AGENDA
PAGE
I.
II.
REPORT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS
OFFICER (Ms. Lampkin)
A.
Vice President’s Remarks
 Student Affairs
B.
Summer Orientation Overview and Report (Ms.
Lampkin to introduce Ms. Tabitha Enoch; Ms. Enoch
to report)
C.
Honor Committee Report (Ms. Lampkin to introduce
Mr. Stephen Nash; Mr. Nash to report)
REPORT BY THE ATHLETICS DIRECTOR (Mr. Littlepage)
A.
Athletics Director’s Remarks
 Athletic Affairs
B.
Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Report
(Mr. Littlepage to introduce Ms. Simone Egwu;
Ms. Egwu to report)
1
2
4
13
14
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 22, 2013
COMMITTEE:
Student Affairs and Athletics
AGENDA ITEM:
I.A.
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
Vice President’s Remarks
BACKGROUND: At each meeting the Vice President updates the
Board on current issues and events that affect operations of the
Division of Student Affairs.
DISCUSSION: The Vice President will provide an update on
student leadership transitions, including elections and
recruitment. She will also highlight recent events involving
student safety initiatives.
1
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 22, 2013
COMMITTEE:
Student Affairs and Athletics
AGENDA ITEM:
I.B.
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
Summer Orientation Program Overview
BACKGROUND: Summer Orientation began at the University in 1999
with the expectation that the program would ―contribute to the
academic and intellectual orientation of students to the
University as a place to study and learn.‖ We remain true to
that goal by providing students an opportunity to get their
academic and non-academic needs met prior to their matriculation
in the fall. The core purposes of the program are to: (1)
register students for their classes, (2) assist students in
their acclimation and familiarity with the Grounds, and (3)
allow students an opportunity to meet returning and fellow
classmates.
Tabitha Enoch, Director of Orientation and New Student
Programs, took a BA from Boston College and an MS from Indiana
University in College Student Personnel. She began her
professional career as a Resident Director at George Washington
University, where she worked for four years, subsequently moving
to Charlottesville in 1999 to assume the role of Assistant Dean
at U.Va. In 2002, she became Director of Orientation and New
Student Programs. Her office provides incoming students with
services that enable them to transition smoothly into their new
roles at the University. Programs under her direction include:
Summer and Fall Orientation, Grounds for Discussion (a peertheater production), First-Year Seminar, Transfer Student
Programming, and Family Weekend. In addition to her work in
Orientation, Tabitha has served as the Vice-Chair on the Board
of Directors for Madison House.
DISCUSSION: Over the 14-year history of the program, Summer
Orientation has evolved to reflect best practices in the field
and to meet the changing needs of incoming students and their
families. However, its two primary purposes have not changed:
to prepare students academically for their first semester and to
introduce them to the culture and values that make the U.Va.
student experience unique. Planning for the program holds these
two objectives at the center while continuously working to
2
ensure operations are effective and use resources as efficiently
as possible. Summer Orientation remains one of the largest
programs in the Division of Student Affairs, hosting nearly 4000
students and an equal number of their parents/guests over six
two-day first-year sessions and two one-day transfer sessions
during the month of July.
Orientation is required of new students at each of the
institutions listed below. The majority of those institutions
hold their programs during the summer. The chart below
summarizes those programs.
Number of
Sessions Offered
33
Parent Orientation
(Y/N)
Yes
18
Yes
Fall Orientation
Program (Y/N)
Only for students
who missed Summer
Orientation
No
Yes
12-15
Yes
No
Yes
14
Yes
Yes
Yes
9
Yes
Yes
Yes
8
Yes
Yes
Yes
6
Yes
No
Cornell
University
No
N/A
Yes
William & Mary
No
N/A
Duke University
No
N/A
Parent events during
first two days of Fall
Orientation
Parent events during
a portion of Fall
Orientation
Parent events during
first two days of Fall
Orientation
University of
Michigan-Ann
Arbor
University of
North CarolinaChapel Hill
University of
Maryland
James Madison
University
University of
CaliforniaBerkeley
University of
Virginia
University of
Texas-Austin
Summer Orientation
Program (Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Given the program’s history as well as the ongoing need to
ensure its effectiveness, we pose the following question to the
Board:
 How do we maximize results in the orientation and
transition process for new students?
3
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 22, 2013
COMMITTEE:
Student Affairs and Athletics
AGENDA ITEM:
I.C.
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
Honor Committee Report
The Honor Committee began this year focused on
engaging the University community in a meaningful way. Multiple
diverse engagement initiatives provided the committee with a
more nuanced and detailed understanding of community sentiment
about the Honor System. Concurrently, the Policies and
Procedures Subcommittee, comprised of some of the committee’s
most experienced support officers, was asked to evaluate our
current System and prepare any possible recommendations.
Building off of the work of previous committees, this
subcommittee presented and strongly endorsed a proposal to the
committee in October. The proposal seeks to address many of the
persistent and substantial problems facing the Honor System and
the Community of Trust. The most urgent symptom of these
problems is the decline in community engagement with the Honor
System; quite simply, faculty and other members of the
University community report disenchantment or apathy with regard
to the Honor System.
BACKGROUND:
The Honor Committee recognizes that problems within the
Honor System are not new. However, persistent problems that
have gone unaddressed over the course of many years have led to
a much weakened Community of Trust. In the summer of 2000, the
committee assembled an Honor System Review Commission, comprised
of students, faculty, a member of the Board of Visitors,
administrators, and others, and tasked this group with assessing
the state of the Honor System. After careful and thorough
study, the Commission concluded, ―We do not think all is well
with the Honor System. We agree with many in the community that
the System is in grave danger and that without substantial
reform it may succumb in the relatively near future to pressure,
external, internal, or both.‖ Six years later, The University
of Virginia Magazine article, entitled ―Restoring Honor,‖ stated
that ―U.Va.’s Honor System is in danger of suffering irreparable
damage. If it is to remain viable, a hard-headed, clear-eyed
realistic discussion of honor’s future is essential.‖
4
The Honor Committee is deeply concerned that allowing
problems to continue to plague the Honor System will result in
honor becoming increasingly irrelevant in the lives of U.Va.
students. On January 21, 2013, the committee voted 25-1 in
favor of the ―Restore the Ideal Act,‖ the proposal first
presented by the Policies and Procedures Subcommittee in
October.
The Act has two elements. The first, an Informed
Retraction, aims to encourage honorable behavior within the
Honor System by building upon the System’s existing
Conscientious Retraction policy. Currently, the Conscientious
Retraction policy provides the opportunity for students to come
forward before they are aware that they are suspected of an
honor offense. By electing to file a valid Conscientious
Retraction, an individual can admit a dishonorable act, make
amends, and remain a student within the Community of Trust. An
Informed Retraction (IR) provides a similar opportunity for
students, but extends that opportunity to the period after a
student has been notified that an honor report has been filed.
This opportunity to file an IR encourages honorable behavior
within the honor process by providing a strong incentive for
honesty, allowing a student to take responsibility for his or
her actions by immediately admitting to the act, making amends
to the Community of Trust by leaving for two full academic
semesters, and then returning and recommitting to our community.
At the same time, this extended opportunity protects the
System’s single sanction policy of having only one consequence
for those students found guilty at trial of committing an honor
offense.
The second element of the Act would be a reversion to
juries comprised of highly-trained and experienced elected Honor
Committee student representatives. With this reversion,
students would once again be empowered to elect those of their
peers who would serve as jurors in an Honor trial. The allCommittee panel structure is identical in format to that used by
the University Judiciary Committee and reflects the same panel
structure used by the Honor Committee for over a century.
Taken together, the two halves of this proposal are
intended to affirm each student’s unwavering commitment to do
what is right — by encouraging honorable behavior within the
System – while also administering the System most effectively
for all those within it. By doing so, it protects the critical
character of the System: student self-governance, a single
5
sanction for those found guilty at trial, and strong community
support.
The second element of the proposed Act would require a
change to the Honor Committee's Constitution with regard to our
current jury options. As such, even if the committee passes the
entire proposal today, it would need to receive 60% of the vote
in the University-wide referendum on February 25-28, 2013, in
order to be enacted. In any case, the committee believes that
neither component is independently sufficient to address current
problems, and, as such, the Act is structured so that each
element is contingent upon approval of the other in order to go
into effect.
DISCUSSION: The Honor Committee enthusiastically supports this
proposal and urges the student body to pass it in the upcoming
University-wide election. Although the committee knows that
there is no perfect solution or silver bullet for the problems
of the Honor System, we believe that this legislation provides a
comprehensive approach to many of the problems that do exist.
Further, we have been encouraged by the widespread and
enthusiastic support we have received so far from many
University stakeholders. Support officers, who work hard to
administer the System every day, have expressed confidence that
this proposal can serve as a comprehensive solution to address
the serious internal problems that they too often encounter.
Faculty and administrators have been excited by this proposal's
potential to provide a System that is effectively administered
and could reinvigorate the spirit of honor within student life.
Additionally, many students we have spoken with also see this
proposal as an opportunity to recommit to honor by addressing
these serious problems and bridging the current divide between
positive support of the ideal and the lack of confidence with
the current procedures.
This proposal aims to comprehensively address internal
dysfunction within the Honor System that is leading to a
weakening culture of Honor at the University. There exist two
primary problems within the Honor System that intertwine to
create this dysfunction. The first problem is that the current
System rewards student dishonesty throughout the honor process
because a student who dishonestly participates – who lies about
his or her actions and knowledge – has a better chance of
receiving a ―not guilty‖ verdict than a student who is honest.
This initial incentive problem within the Honor System is
compounded by the use of randomly-selected jury panels. Due to
6
lack of familiarity and/or discomfort with the Honor System’s
standards and By-Laws, random student jurors may undermine the
consistent and accurate interpretation of standards such as
―reasonable doubt.‖ As a result, not only does the Honor System
initially encourage dishonesty, it later rewards it because
random student jury panels are more likely to find those who
manufacture doubt to be not guilty even in the face of
overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, a student who has
committed an act that may be an honor offense, and who honestly
participates in the process by sticking to the facts at hand
substantially weakens his or her defense at trial.
In essence, these two problems have created a System
whereby students who honestly participate are permanently
dismissed, and those who behave dishonestly are much more likely
to remain within the Community of Trust. This inconsistency
with the values of honor has led countless students and faculty
to become disaffected, refusing to participate further in the
Honor System. Over time, this has created an increasingly
unsustainable disconnect between the ideals of the Honor System
and its practical utility.
The proposed Act seeks to restore the Honor System to its
fundamental purpose of holding students to a high standard of
personal integrity that rests on the absolute pursuit of the
truth and an unwavering commitment to do what is right. The IR
extends the opportunity already provided by the Conscientious
Retraction for students to take responsibility for their actions
and make amends with the Community, thus once again recognizing
the inherent value in doing what is right. Additionally, Jury
Reform switches the reward for student dishonesty to student
honesty within the System by ensuring that all students who opt
for a trial instead of an IR will come before a highly-trained
and experienced jury panel of elected student representatives
whose only consideration is the pursuit of the truth.
In short, this proposal seeks to address the Honor System’s
internal dysfunction by re-aligning it with the ideals of the
System and protecting the critical pillars of its unique
character — a single sanction for those found guilty at trial,
student self-governance, and strong community support. If this
proposal passes, the distance between the ideals and the
practical reality of the System would begin to shrink.
Each component taken separately, however, would not
sufficiently address current problems. An IR would independently
provide an opportunity for students to do what is right once
7
initially reported. However, it would not address one of the
most significant and common criticisms of the System — verdicts
rendered by less trained random students that reward dishonesty
as an effective means to obfuscate the standards and By-Laws.
On the other hand, Jury Reform alone would help to render more
consistent verdicts, but would fail to correct the incentive
structure that currently encourages dishonesty as the most
effective technique for remaining within the Community of Trust.
Mr. Nash will present the rationale behind the Honor
Committee’s support for this proposal as well as what passage of
the legislation would mean for the Honor System. It will
include an overview of the current problems, an explanation of
each component of the proposal, and the ultimate goal of this
effort.
Although various referenda have been brought to student
vote in the past, this is one of the first times that the
committee has passed, and strongly endorsed, a proposal to
modify the Honor System in this way. The committee believes
that now is the time to re-commit to honor and that we have a
responsibility to ensure a strong System for future generations
of students. The student body will vote on the proposal
February 25 – 28 and it will require an affirmative vote from
60% of the eligible student body to go into effect. The
committee believes its current campaign in favor of this
proposal is the most important effort it has undertaken and is
crucially linked to our mission to protect the Community of
Trust.
Given the foregoing discussion, the committee would
appreciate the Board’s feedback on the following questions:
If the proposal passes, and thus receives large support
from the student-body, how can the Board of Visitors assist the
Honor Committee in achieving its subsequent goal of earning back
the confidence and support of many community members?
If the proposal does not pass the student body, how can the
Board of Visitors assist future Honor Committees to ensure that
conversations regarding proposals build off of the work of
previous years and reflect a continuity of purpose?
8
Analysis:
FIGURE 1: Current dysfunction within the Honor System creates a
damaging cycle for the Community of Trust
The first problem contributing to dysfunction within the
Honor System is that it currently provides no incentive for
student honesty and often no consequence for dishonesty
throughout the Honor process. This initial incentive problem
within the Honor System is compounded by the second problem of
random student juries. Due to inexperience and discomfort with
the Honor System’s standards and By-Laws, random students may
undermine the consistent and accurate interpretation of
standards such as ―reasonable doubt.‖ As a result, not only
does the Honor System often fail to provide a consequence for
student dishonesty, it actually encourages it. This has
caused many to lose confidence in the System and has led to a
corrosive disconnect between the Honor System’s ideal and
practical reality, a disconnect that is weakening the Community
of Trust.
STATISTICS: Lack of confidence and frustration with the Honor
System has led to extraordinarily low community participation,
which creates a vicious cycle that weakens the Community of
Trust
 42% of students said that they would report an honor
offense v. 5% of students who said that they did report an
offense that they witnessed.
9


Faculty who have previously reported a case to the Honor
System are three times more likely to completely oppose the
System now and twice as likely to somewhat oppose the
System.
5% of students admit to committing an honor offense and up
to 42% of students may have witnessed an honor offense, yet
less than 0.5% of students are reported each year.
FIGURE 2: Lack of confidence in the Honor System has led to an
unsustainable disconnect between the Community’s ideal of the
Honor System and the procedural reality
Students and faculty overwhelmingly think positively about
the concepts, values, and ideals of our Community of Trust and
its Honor System. However, the practical reality fails to live
up to those ideas, and over decades has caused an unsustainable
and growing disconnect. As more individuals think of the Honor
System positively in concept but negatively in practice, our
student self-governance is undermined and the Community of Trust
is weakened.
10
FIGURE 3: University-wide student survey demonstrates that the
IR achieves its desired goals in strengthening the Honor System.
In the largest University-wide student survey regarding the
Honor System, students responded very positively to the
inclusion of an IR within the System. First, the largest
proportion of students (48%) responded that a System with an IR
would be more effective at discouraging honor offenses. Second,
a majority of students (67.6%) felt that a System with an IR
would make them more likely to report an honor offense. Lastly,
the overwhelming majority of students (84.1%) indicated that the
IR would not affect their likelihood of committing an honor
offense.
FIGURE 4: Both components taken together provide a comprehensive
approach to current Honor System dysfunction
This proposal seeks to restore the Honor System to its
fundamental purpose of holding students to a high standard of
personal integrity that rests on the absolute pursuit of the
truth and an unwavering commitment to do what is right. The IR
extends the opportunity already provided by the Conscientious
Retraction for students to take responsibility for their actions
and make amends with the Community, thus once again recognizing
the inherent value in doing what is right. Additionally, Jury
Reform shifts the incentive structure within the System, and
11
ensures the fairest possible adjudication of honor cases, by
ensuring that all students who opt for a trial instead of an IR
will come before a highly-trained and experienced jury panel of
elected student representatives whose only consideration is the
pursuit of the truth.
As demonstrated in the figure below, while there are
benefits to both components, each is independently insufficient
to solve the dysfunction within the Honor System.
12
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 22, 2013
COMMITTEE:
Student Affairs and Athletics
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
Athletics Director’s Report
BACKGROUND: At each meeting the Director updates the Board on
current issues and events that affect operations of the
Department of Athletics.
13
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
February 22, 2013
COMMITTEE:
Student Affairs and Athletics
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B. Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
Update
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
BACKGROUND: The National Collegiate Athletics Association
(NCAA) recommends that each member institution sponsor an
advisory committee composed of student-athletes. These bodies
are commonly named Student-Athlete Advisory Councils (SAAC), and
they foster interaction and communication between studentathletes and the institution's athletics administration.
Simone Egwu is a fourth-year studying government in the
College of Arts and Sciences, from which she will earn her
degree in May. She is also pursuing a master’s in public policy
from the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.
Ms. Egwu is the starting center of the women's basketball team
and is from Odenton, Maryland.
DISCUSSION: The goal of the SAAC is to seek feedback and
promote the student-athlete voice in matters related to their
experience on Grounds and nationally. Director of Athletics,
Mr. Craig Littlepage, will introduce this year's SAAC President,
Ms. Simone Egwu. She will report on topics this year's SAAC has
discussed and brought before the Department of Athletics for
discussion.
14