Honor — you can do better

of CIOs on Grounds, 30 reached out. The Committee made no discernable public attempt to further advertise their invitation. Special Status Organizations — including the University Judiciary Committee, which currently operates under a multi-sanction system and has for years — were also excluded. The whole point of the Convention was to solicit feedback and draft language for a multi-sanction system, but the Committee’s lack of preparedness ultimately prompted the delegates to crank out proposals behind closed doors days before the start of this semester.

The first proposal has a panel of non-Committee members convict students on either of two standards — “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A separate all-Committee panel would then decide the appropriate sanction based upon the standard of conviction. The second proposal staffs the two panels in the same way, but the available sanctions are determined based on whether or not the initial guilty ver-

The Cavalier Daily

The Cavalier Daily is a financially and editorially independent news organization staffed and managed entirely by students of the University of Virginia.

The opinions expressed in The Cavalier Daily are not necessarily those of the students, faculty, staff or administration of the University of Virginia. Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the editorial board. Cartoons and columns represent the views of the authors. The managing board of The Cavalier Daily has sole authority over and responsibility for all content.

No part of The Cavalier Daily or The Cavalier Daily online edition may be reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the written consent of the editor-in-chief.

The Cavalier Daily is published Thursdays in print and daily online at cavalierdaily. com. It is printed on at least 40 percent recycled paper. 2022 The Cavalier Daily Inc.

HAVE AN OPINION?

The Cavalier Daily welcomes letters to the editor and guest columns. Writers must provide full name, telephone number and University affiliation, if appropriate. Letters should not exceed 250 words in length and columns should not exceed 700. The Cavalier Daily does not guarantee publication of submissions and may edit all material for content and grammar. Submit to opinion@cavalierdaily.com or P.O. Box 400703, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4703

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

To better serve readers, The Cavalier Daily has a public editor to respond to questions and concerns regarding its practices. The public editor writes a column published every week on the opinion pages based on reader feedback and his independent observations. He also welcomes queries pertaining to journalism and the newspaper industry in general. The public editor is available at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com.

dict is unanimous and open to “the full range of sanctions.” In contrast to the first two, the third proposal says the panel that determines guilt should also include Committee members. The last proposal has one group of non-Committee and Committee members decide both guilt and sanction.

If you struggled to understand these, you’re not alone. Much like with the Convention, the Committee hasn’t attempted to explain anything about these proposals They are incredibly confusing, and what’s more, each is riddled with problems. Sanctions should be proportionate to the offense committed, not the standard of evidence or the number of votes in favor of the conviction. The proposals are also unethical — having a panel which convicts students and having another which sanctions students may lead to significant miscommunications between the two groups. A two-panel system may also stretch out the already notoriously long processing timeline for cases. While the proposals are problematic, they are only a reflection of the system which led to their creation.

At the end of the day, these are just proposals, drafted by students who were ill-prepared and short on time. The Committee must recognize the ideas presented in these plans do not envision the multi-sanction system that the student body deserves. A new constitution should allow the Committee to hold overtly punitive measures in abeyance, in order to deter future violations of the honor code. The Committee should focus on implementing sanctions that help convicted students learn from their mistakes while rebuilding trust within the community — much like the process already used by the University Judiciary Committee. Reforms of this nature would foster a system of justice that recognizes nuance and promotes restoration.

Let us be clear — we need an Honor system that recognizes that no two situations are the same and that everyone deserves a second chance. While we appreciate the Committee’s recent efforts to rethink how we safeguard our Community of Trust, this process will be unsuccessful if it relies on these flawed proposals produced by an unrepresentative slate of delegates. The Committee must work to increase transparency if it wants to achieve the necessary changes — amending the constitution behind closed doors limits exposure to the student body, and we will not vote for a constitution that we do not understand. This moment is an opportunity to create a system that is representative, accessible and rehabilitative. We are at the precipice of a new beginning for the Committee — members must decide if they want this next chapter to be any better than the last.

THE CAVALIER DAILY EDITORIAL BOARD is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, their Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.

MANAGING BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

Ava MacBlane

Managing Editor

Lexi Baker

Executive Editor

Nathan Onibudo

Operations Manager

Ava Proehl

Chief Financial Officer

Charlie Healy

EDITORIAL BOARD

Grace Duregger

Ava MacBlane

Ford McCracken

Leila Mohajer

Nathan Onibudo

Songhan Pang

Shaleah Tolliver

JUNIOR BOARD

Assistant Managing Editors

Claire DiLorenzo

Alexandra Holmes

(SA) Ella Dailey

(SA) Isabella Gattuso

(SA) Kate Jensen

(SA) Sahil Patel

(SA) Karen Shin

Assistant Operations Manager

Honor Wood

(SA) Mary Kurbanov

(SA) Alexa Mosley

News Editors

Avery Donmoyer

Merrill Hart

(SA) Eleanor Jenkins

Life Editors

Miriella Jiffar

Cecy Juárez

(SA) Elizabeth Parsons

Sports Editors

Ben Anderson

Jacob Tisdale

(SA) Ben Istvan

(SA) Alexa Mosley

Arts & Entertainment Editors

Olivia Garrone

Tanner Rowe

(SA) Jamie Jeong

Health & Science Editors

Oluwamisayo Ologun

Haylee Ressa

Podcast Editors

Jake Adler

Katie Pile

Opinion Editors

Grace Durreger

Shaleah Tolliver

(SA) Ford McCracken

(SA) Songhan Pang

Humor Editors

Camila Cohen Suárez

(SA) Kate McCarty

(SA) Wardah Kamran

Cartoon Editor

Kaileigh Proctor

Photo Editor

Albert Tang

(SA) Adaire Burnsed

(SA) Proud Chandragholica

(SA) Kate MacArthur

(SA) Alison Pike

Design Editors

Lexie Gagnon

Mix Rudolph

Avery Suriano

Video Editor

Olivia Winesett

Social Media Managers

Covonna Bynum

Ceili Canning

(SA) Halle McCormack

(SA) Taylor Goodman

Analytics Manager

Melinda Wong

Translation Editors

Marina Peebles

Shuqi Ye

(SA) Alejandro Erazo

Finance Manager

Wilson Simmons

Advertising Manager

Mason Lewis

Archivist

Grace Franklin

The current U.S. Supreme Court seems intent on sending the United States back to the 20th century. First it was overturning Roe v. Wade and challenging tribal sovereignty, now the Supreme Court has the potential to overturn another 1960s precedent — affirmative action. It is extremely concerning to see a handful of old, white men — who are both unelected and who hold life-long appointments — make decisions that will primarily affect low-income people of color. This Court is set to make a decision by June on two cases which challenge the constitutionality of considering race as a factor in college admissions.

Affirmative action arose from the civil rights movement and was intended to expand the opportunities for women and underrepresented minorities in employment, which eventually expanded to colleges and universities. The original executive orders which eliminated racial discrimination in employment were created and supported by several U.S. presidents, including John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon. The phrase affirmative action derives from the exact words that Johnson used in Executive Order 11246 to describe the manner in which employers should act to ensure racial equity. Over six dec-