"This system is student-run the way U.Va. is state-funded." Louis Bloomfield Physics professor

Oct. 14, 2003 — The Honor System is seriously flawed and needs an overhaul, physics professor Louis A. Bloomfield recommended to the Faculty Senate Tuesday.

Bloomfield, who initiated 158 honor cases in April 2001 stemming from term paper irregularities in his “How Things Work” course, said the faculty should stop being the police of the system and demand that the students assume responsibility for a community of trust.

The Faculty Senate, armed with recommendations from Bloomfield, is weighing the role of the faculty in the Honor System, a student-run program that mandates immeduate expulsion for those found guilty of intentional cheating, lying and stealing.

In the ideal system, students would live honorable lives and enforce the system themselves, Bloomfield said, but the students want the respect without the responsibility.

“The community of trust is too much work [for the students],” he said.

As proof, he cited two contemporary changes: permitting faculty to initiate violation cases, and dropping the non-toleration clause, which required students aware of honor violations to report them.

“We should never have accepted that,” he said.

Bloomfield made international news with his computer program that spotted similarities in student papers. Of 158 cases that came from his complaints, 45 students left the University and three degrees were revoked following approximately 30 honors trials.

As he recounted details from his ordeal, Bloomfield asked the faculty members not to consider it his story but look at it through the eyes of a junior faculty member, facing an apparent honors infraction for the first time.

Faculty members are reluctant to file cases because they are a “time sink,” Bloomfield said. There is no guarantee of the outcome, the faculty member has no support staff, gets no reimbursement for expenses and there is a tremendous sense of personal responsibility, especially for a guilty verdict. He said faculty members face being put on trial themselves, threatened with lawsuits and committing “careericide.”

Bloomfield said while he received moral support from faculty, students, alumni and community members, he got no support from the administration.

“It is hard to go through something like this and hear nothing from the administration,” he said.

President John T. Casteen III, who attended the Faculty Senate meeting, said since the process is adversarial and the accused student is innocent until proven guilty, the administration was advised by its legal counsel to not demonstrate support for either side in the process.

There does not seem to be a general understanding of the hazards for the faculty in the system, Casteen said, adding that the Honor System seemed stronger when students brought the charges, because then the accuser was subject to the same standards as the accused.

The reality of the Honor System, Bloomfield said, is that while most students are honest, they do not see it as a social contract. They do not want to turn in friends, be viewed by their peers as a rat or feel they have wrecked someone’s life.

“This system is student-run the way U.Va. is state-funded,” Bloomfield said, believing that the system is now driven primarily by faculty-initiated cases. But faculty avoid the Honor System because of the hassles involved with it, he said. Some deny cheating is occurring or are not willing to deal with it, while others simply handle incidents on their own.

The faculty should persuade students to re-examine the system, Bloomfield said. He said some professors suspend certain privileges in their classes because the bond of trust is broken. Bloomfield has not let his own students take exams outside the classroom since 1993. He also does not permit papers in his class to be part of the fraternity examination files.

Bloomfield called for students to introduce more sanctions besides expulsion, saying that is too drastic and discourages students from enforcing the system. The single sanction also discourages plea bargaining.

“They will fight to the death,” Bloomfield said of the accused students because of the expulsion threat. “Some will walk. It’s characteristic of society. It’s not whether you did it or not, but ‘can you win the game?’”

Penalties should be expanded to allow for rehabilitation and maybe feature community service or a one-semester suspension. The current system redefines misconduct, he said, and also discriminates against athletes. If convicted, athletes can lose eligibility to play elsewhere, while non-athletes can transfer to other schools.

Carey Mignerey, chairman of the Honor Committee, who also attended the Faculty Senate meeting, said students have to vote on changes in the Honor System and, in past votes, the majority has supported the single sanction.

After the meeting, Bloomfield said if he was again confronted with similar circumstances of academic dishonesty, he would not pursue an honor case, because of the personal costs involved.

“It took too much of my life,” he said. “It was two years that came out of my research, my writing and my family, not in that order. And there was no recognition for it. It was a total loss.”

Robert E. Davis, chairman of the Faculty Senate, said the issue will be examined by the Faculty Senate’s Academic Affairs Committee. He said the committee would meet with students on the Honor Committee and then with faculty honor advisers before making its recommendations.

“There are some things we can do, such as setting up a faculty support structure, which would have resources and information for faculty members,” Davis said. “The students have people they can go to on legal issues.”

The Honor System is glorious in principle, Bloomfield said, allowing for the best education and academic freedom.

“I would love to have an Honor System,” Bloomfield said “The students should fix it.”