Matt West
Chair
College of Arts and Sciences Representative
I will not be voting for the proposed amendment to the Honor Committee Constitution. As our
institutions of government at all levels reflect, amendments to a system’s most foundational
governing document should be ratified by more than a small majority of voters. It is both reasonable
and responsible to require ratification by a 60% qualified majority—this ensures that a small majority
of voters cannot impose their will on large minority of students and fundamentally alter the Honor
System without their consent.
The current requirements for constitutional change—60% of voters, provided that 10% of all
students vote in favor of the amendment—also do not create an unreasonable barrier to progress. In
the past four years, four amendments were ratified with the current 60% threshold in place, three of
which were initiated by students and one of which introduced the Informed Retraction,
unquestionably the greatest change to the Honor System in decades.
Regardless of your opinion on Honor's sanctioning policies, I strongly caution against viewing this
amendment as merely a means to achieving a desired end. In 2005, 59.5% percent of voting students
voted in favor of an amendment requiring a majority of the entire student body to vote in favor of a
proposed change to the Single Sanction in order to ratify it. This result was even closer to a 60%
majority than last year's vote. The passage of this amendment would have created an exceptionally
high barrier to sanctioning reform, particularly given that total student participation in elections very
rarely reaches 50%. Had the 60% threshold not been in place in 2005, the sanctioning reform that
our community debates today would be a near impossibility. As you prepare to vote, I encourage
you to remember the protections that responsible institutions can provide.
Austin Sim
Vice Chair for Hearings
School of Law Representative
“I and my fellow students at the School of Law are against this irresponsible and shortsighted
referendum. As a law student, I believe strongly in the greater purpose of a constitution over other
forms of laws and regulations. They are meant to enshrine a limited number of fundamental rights
and principles. While “entrenchment” is portrayed negatively, it is a fundamental aspect of codified
constitutions. Ours includes Committee purpose/composition/election, rights of the Accused, selfgovernance, and sanctioning power. That’s it. This is a misguided attempt to facilitate a multisanction system and little more. Other similarly situated organization constitutions at UVA require
an even higher 2/3 supermajority for ratification, but for some reason, there don’t seem to be any
controversies there. Additionally, the contention that our constitution has not changed is contrary to
fact. Among the multiple amendments that have passed in the past few years, the proposal of the
Informed Retraction by a student outside of Honor in direct opposition to a combined measure
from the Committee stands as one of the most significant changes in the past few decades. The
current proposed amendment is a makeshift measure that creates a false sense of accomplishment
and detracts from the real problems in outreach and engagement.”
Sarah Wyckoff
Vice Chair for Investigations
College of Arts & Sciences Representative
“For me, the sticking point in the discussion about the merits of the “Democratization
Amendment” is the 10% floor—that only 10% of the student body is theoretically required to vote
in favor of an amendment for it to pass. I believe that this number is currently problematic because
at best it assumes that that opinion of 10% can be reliably extrapolated to reflect the opinion of the
remaining 90% and, at worst it assumes that the other 90%, in choosing not to vote, don’t have
voices that matter in the conversation about Honor. It allows us, as an Honor Committee and
student body in general, to be complacent.
When looking at 55% vs. 60%, I can’t help but see these numbers in light of the 10% floor. I don’t
believe it’s wise to lower the threshold to 55% without simultaneously raising the floor and
expanding outreach efforts (on behalf of both Honor and UBE) to increase voter engagement and
participation. However, it's important to note that even if the floor is raised, by moving closer to a
simple majority vote and away from a supermajority requirement, we allow for increasingly
unpopular decisions to be pushed through by the majority group. This can result in the silencing of
minority voices who are no longer needed for change.
Beyond this, I would point to Olivier Weiss’s recent Cavalier Daily article that outlines additional
concerns with the amendment. Above all, I firmly don’t believe that this amendment solves the
larger issues that Honor has faced over the years, particularly concerns surrounding its culture and
the disproportionate effects on certain student groups.”
Ariana Zetlin
Vice Chair for Education
Curry School of Education Representative
I am extremely cautious of reducing the 60% threshold without adjusting the quota of student voters
required to pass a constitutional amendment. Currently, 60% of voting students, but only 10% of the
entire student body, is required to amend the Honor Constitution. This means as few as 10% of UVA
students can represent the “majority opinion” and are capable of fundamentally altering a system
that has persisted, yet progressed, for over 170 years. Lowering the threshold to 55% may appear
reasonable prima facie, but it will set a dangerous precedent if it is not protected by raising the floor
requirement of voters. Further reducing the number of students necessary to make such significant,
and even frequent, changes to a constitution will lead to instability and will undermine the legitimacy
of student self-governance. I am not opposed to change, and I am not opposed to the intent of this
amendment, which is to ensure that the voice of the student body is heard; however, I do not
believe this amendment does so responsibly.
Hannah Earl and Tamia Walker-Atwater
School of Nursing Representatives
“Based on polled students, the majority of the School of Nursing is not in favor of the proposed
Democratization Amendment to Honor’s Constitution. The primary purpose of any constitution is
to establish and protect the basic rights of the people it governs. The Nursing community believes
this amendment is created in bad faith, and therefore would potentiate negative manipulation of the
Honor system. In order to protect and maintain the values of student self-governance, propositions
of change must promote and protect the sustainable interest of the university. We must base
decisions on what is best for the majority and for the future generations of UVA students.
The 60% supermajority is in place to allow measured change to a diverse body of students. In
comparison to other governing bodies of UVA, which require a 66% majority for constitutional
changes, Honor’s 60% ensures that any changes made are responsible while accurately reflecting the
opinions of the student body.
This misguided amendment proposes a detrimental avenue for retaliatory change that does not
represent the opinions and rights of our students.”
Corinne Thomas
McIntire School of Commerce Representative
“Although I am grateful for this amendment because it represents continued active participation in
student self-governance and advocacy for change, I do not support it. The proposal to lower the
percentage of votes required to ratify amendments to the Honor Constitution from three-fifths (or
60%) of students to 55% of students is not the best avenue to enact meaningful change. Our Honor
Constitution, a brief document enumerating powers of the Honor Committee, should only undergo
change when a significant number of the voting student body sees valuable change. In 2013, the
student body successfully voted to establish the Informed Retraction, and I believe that further
reform is forthcoming and positive for our system. With better outreach and carefully thought
proposals, I believe that the student body will pass amendments to the Honor Constitution in the
near future; however, I do not believe that lowering the threshold is the best step to encouraging
that change.”
Kasey Groves
McIntire School of Commerce Representative
While I agree with the spirit of making Honor a more accountable and responsive system, I question
the effectiveness of this amendment. The 55% percent proposed threshold seems to be a reaction to
last year's sanctioning vote, which narrowly failed to meet the current 60% threshold. I do not think
that lowering a voting threshold that is already lower than the two-thirds majority required by
Student Council and UJC for constitutional change will effectively make Honor a more responsive
body. Rather, I believe that promoting voter education and undertaking significant efforts to
increase participation in student elections are more effective ways to ensure that student opinion is
heard. To me, arbitrarily lowering the voting threshold in response to a single vote is reactionary,
and does not represent a substantive change in the way that Honor interacts with the student body.
While this is my personal opinion, I encourage every student to educate him or herself on the merits
and deficiencies of this amendment and, most importantly, to vote.
Maggie Rowe
School of Law Representative
“As a representative from the School of Law, I would like to share my opposition to the proposed
amendment to lower the Honor constitution's affirmative vote threshold from 60% to 55%. The
proposed amendment was met with unanimous opposition at this week's Student Bar Association
meeting, primarily due to concerns over compromising the long-term vitality of the Honor
constitution in order to more quickly implement specific changes to the System.
The Honor constitution should provide a basis from which the community implements student self
governance. While no constitution should be too rigid as to lock future community members into
outdated and unwavering ideologies, a constitution should not be made so vulnerable as to
compromise its foundational role. The Honor constitution has undergone frequent and at times
substantial amendment, and will continue to do so when accompanied by the appropriate level of
widespread consensus and necessity.*
Lowering the threshold in this manner makes the Honor constitution more closely resemble our
bylaws, and compromises the stability of student self governance. Permanent change to any
constitution should not be made lightly. Over 11,000 proposals have been made to amend the
United States Constitution since 1787 with 27 succeeding, a .2% rate of success.** Last year's failure
to make a permanent constitutional change toward a multi-sanction system was not a failure to
influence change in the committee or in the community as a whole.
It is imperative and that the community continue to advocate for positive changes to the Honor
System, but the "Democratization Amendment's" effort for short-term success will compromise the
long-term vitality of representative democracy and student self governance at UVA.”
*Mary Frances Berry clearly articulates the principles behind making constitutions resistant to
change, despite its perceived negative impact to progressive
change. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/magazine/amending-the-constitution-how-hard-itis-to-change.html?pagewanted=all
**https://www.senate.gov/reference/measures_proposed_to_amend_constitution.htm
Ory Streeter
School of Medicine Representative
“Our Community of Trust endures through our collective respect for one another. The Honor
System should reflect the values of the Community and evolve at the will of an engaged student
body. I thank the authors of the proposed amendment, and its supporters, for embodying the spirit
of student self-governance. Your passion deserves emulation and your desire for a more responsive
Honor System is heard. Many students are unaware that the Honor Committee responded to 2016's
popular-yet-failed referendum to create a multi-sanction system by convening the Honor Audit
Commission as an independent body charged with critically analyzing our current Honor System and
providing recommendations for change based on extensive research and UVA student outreach.
The Committee also convened a group to explore Informed Retraction expansion. Subsequent
proposals for significant constitution and bylaw changes are anticipated. The threshold for
constitutional change should be both attainable and protective. The current 60% threshold has not
impeded significant constitutional change- as evidenced by the four amendments to our constitution
enacted since 2013 including the creation of the Informed Retraction. Lowering the threshold may
allow dramatic oscillations in fundamental policy on an annual basis (e.g. single sanction to multisanction and back again). The challenges of educating the student body on continuously shifting
policy would be immense and the Community would suffer. Additionally, it would be politically
difficult to re-stabilize the process through a threshold increase (e.g. back to 60%) if necessary. For
the above reasons, I support the authors' intentions but oppose the amendment.”
Hannah Chacon
School of Medicine Representative
“The proposed amendment to the Honor constitution changing the voting threshold necessary to
pass an amendment to 55% from 60% is a mostly benign change and will likely not result in a drastic
change to student voting, though the theoretical possibility exists. I think it is necessary to think
about this amendment in the context that its’ author provided (as realized in the aftermath of last
election) and also independent of such influences. My rationale for keeping the threshold at 60%:
1. I would hope that an amendment fit to change the Honor System would have overwhelming
(>60%) support since it affects 100%.
2. 60% accounts for the increased ratio of students desiring a change to students not desiring said
change in the voting population compared to non-voting.
3. A higher threshold establishes more permanent policy- it guards against the next year reactively
voting to reverse a new policy.
4. In the context of the amendments not passing last year, I feel like voting to lower the threshold
instead of increasing support in order to pass our amendment is slippery.
However, none of these reasons is sufficient to convince me that this amendment should not pass.
The amendment is mainly about giving the students a greater voice. I support student self-
governance. If over 60% want the threshold to be 55% then so be it. I could support a threshold of
51% for the same reason. The individual medical school students consulted were apathetic. This
reflects my personal opinion.”
Matt Breen & Charlie Strickland
Darden Representatives 2016-2017
After deep discussions, we sympathize with the intent of the bill, but worry that the spirit and logic
is misplaced. While we can agree the original choosing of a 60% majority over a 2/3 or 55% might
seem arbitrary, we believe shifting the threshold lower is a retreat from the problem, not a solution.
As a community, we should create amendments that illicit more support, the spirit of this
amendment says we want change with less agreement. We feel this is a dangerous message to send.
The logic behind this argument is the system is at a gridlock, and lowering the threshold is the only
way to induce change. We strongly disagree. Last week at committee, we received amazing
community feedback on both this amendment and the system. This deeply affected our views on
several parts of honor. As a committee, we make several decisions a year that affect the processes
and procedures. If you feel strongly in favor of this amendment, we encourage you to become as
involved as the group from the past week. That will greatly increase the velocity of change in our
system.
Caroline Herre
School of Architecture Representative
“I'll be voting to keep 60% simply because I believe that the supermajority is reasonable and sound.
Since I've been a student, 6 binding constitutional amendments have come up for a vote, and 4 of
them have passed. So I don't think our documents are resistant to change, but if, as a Committee, we
aren't fully listening to the community, we have more work to do with outreach. That sentiment is
valid and inspiring, and I hope we can work together toward meaningful change. Addressing that
through lowering the bar is not the answer.”
Will Rainey
School of Engineering Representative
I am opposed to the referendum. Olivier Weiss wrote a wonderful opinion for the Cavalier Daily
and I urge you to read it as well.
Some main points on why I oppose the referendum:
• Why do we have a US Constitution and not just laws?
• Why do we have an Honor Constitutions and not just by laws?
• We think there is a short list of rules, rights, and protections that are
imperative to the continuation our society or an institution.
• Honor’s Constitution is extremely short yet holds the most important rights:
•
•
o Right to a hearing
o Right to a jury
o Right to take an IR
o Sanctioning
These rights should be difficult to amend or change because of their
fundamental nature to the process
Lowering the threshold to 55% will do nothing to help fix the problems our
Honor System faces – low reporting rates, over reporting of international
students, spotlighting, etc.
We need solutions to real problems, not Band-Aids as a reactionary result of last year’s vote.