Scratch the Single Sanction

The University of Virginia is an institution built on tradition. From its pretentious, but beloved vocabulary (grounds, not campus!) to its Southern charm (guys in ties/ girls in pearls), from living on the Lawn to streaking the Lawn-- the UVa community is quick to embrace its history and hesitant to question it. And what's perhaps one of the oldest, and most outdated institutions at UVa? The student run Honor System and its Draconian single sanction. Each student that applies to UVa signs the honor code (never to "lie, cheat, or steal") on their application and then re-takes the oath during convocation. Many schools have honor systems similar to UVa's student run Honor Committee, but what makes UVa's Honor System truly unique is the single sanction- that if a student is found guilty of breaking the honor code there is only one available punishment: expulsion.

From the 2012 Student Survey on Honor

Recently two students were expelled for cheating on a biology test. Rumor has it that a handful of engineers were also expelled this week for a similar cheating scandal. In the meantime, those guilty of rape and sexual assault face little or no punishment. The rational behind the single sanction is that UVa wants to create a "community of trust" through the threat of a punishment so severe that no "rational" person would consider breaking the honor code. Despite the harsh, punitive the 2012 Student Survey on Honor reveals that 60% of UVa students have not reported observed honor violations. Moreover, 83% of students admit that “uneasiness about the student being dismissed” would deter them from reporting an honor violation. Evidence shows that the single sanction does the opposite of its intended purpose.

Last October I participated in the Ethics Debate, an annual debate between the Washington and Jefferson Societies literary and debating societies at UVa. This year we changed the format and held the debate as an exhibition in front of the Honor Committee and Dean of Students. The topic? Resolved: The single sanction is unethical. Much of the content of this post is taken from my constructive speech, which I wrote with the help of my partner, Ben, and Sam, a Wash member who I debated with in debate tryouts. Nevertheless, I've decided to publish it because I sincerely believe that the single sanction ought to be abandoned in favor of a multiple sanction system. In our presentation we used three standards of justice to gauge whether the single sanction is ethical as a punishment or not: that punishment ought to be 1) proportional, 2) preventative, and 3) rehabilitative. The single sanction meets none of these standards, which is why it is unethical.

Proportional justice maintains that criminal punishments ought be tailored to the crime. This is something we all intuitively understand: stealing ten dollars from the cash register is not equivalent to stealing someone’s car. Hence it makes sense that our legal system treats these crimes differently and gives a much more severe punishment for grand theft auto. Crimes against the honor code can be very different too: Is lying about the severity of an illness to miss a test the same as turning in an essay downloaded from the internet? Is taking an additional piece of fruit from Runk the same as embezzling money from your CIO? With such variation in crimes, uniform punishment can’t possibly be adequate, yet we have here a system that by its very name is defined as just that: a option for sanctions. However, more choices of punishment mean that you can properly match a crime to its retribution.See, honor offensives don’t exist within a binary system; rather, they exist on a continuum in which different offensives merit different responses. The Honor Council at William & Mary, for example, provides a more ethical template of a swathe of punishments including a recommendation for a failing grade in the course, community service, and academic probation. It may be ethical to allow for the expulsion of a student in extreme circumstances, but having additional options better enables us to acknowledge this spectrum.

UVa Honor Logo

Secondly, the single sanction does not uphold preventative justice.The idea behind preventative justice is that punishments ought to be designed as to discourage people from committing crimes. As I already mentioned, the single sanction is so Draconian and unrealistic that it actively prevents students from reporting honor violations because very few students want to see their peers expelled. Results from a 2006 Faculty Survey on Honor also reveal that a majority of faculty members are hesitant to report honor offensives because of doubts about the single sanction. If an incident isn’t reported to them, the honor system has no power to prevent further issues whatsoever. Additionally, Honor cannot punish trivial cases with the Single Sanction, and thus there is no disincentive from committing trivial honor violations! As a result, most students who commit even “mid-level” honor offenses that are not deemed sufficiently egregious so as to merit expulsion are merely let off the hook with no punishment.

Furthermore, the single sanction goes beyond failing to prevent honor violations and instead encourages students to lie during their trail. When accused students enter their honor trial, they are incentivized to lie through their teeth to avoid being expelled because if they lie and get caught, it doesn’t matter because they were going to be expelled anyway. When there are gradual punishments, however, a student is encouraged to tell the truth to gain the trust of the jury in order to be given a lesser punishment.

Lastly, the single sanction disregards the possibility of rehabilitative justice. The premise of rehabilitative- or restorative, justice is that institutions ought to react to crime in a way that seeks to rehabilitate the accused in the hopes of restoring the community. Obviously, the Single Sanction does not do this -- it gives convicted students no second chance, no opportunity for further education, no chance to learn from their mistakes and make amends for their crimes against our community. In fact, by encouraging lying during trials (as I previously mentioned) the single sanction makes students repeat offenders instead of rehabilitating them!

Furthermore, the single sanction violates many of the UVa community’s values such as learning, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness, & Jeffersonian humanism. We don’t expect students to know everything immediately upon entering the university; education is the primary purpose universities after all, yet students are bound by the honor code immediately upon their arrival and subject to the Single Sanction. How can a punishment system that expels you for a single infraction be ethical if, according to the 2012 Student Survey on Honor, about 50% of UVA students have not heard about the Honor Code prior to arriving on grounds? People don’t magically and instantaneously assimilate into our system, and the single sanction means that people only get a single chance.

This totally denies the opportunity for rehabilitative justice and fails to accomplish the mission of a great University such as ours. We have seen that the single sanction is inconsistent with all three of the major perspectives on punishment: proportionality, prevention, and rehabilitation. As one faculty member reported in a 2006 Assessment on Honor:

The System itself does not exemplify the morals we would nurture in our students: it is not responsive to the particulars of a person's situation; it is neither nimble nor wise; and it is not merciful or humane. Instead, it is rule-bound, cumbersome, and essentially punitive.

While the single sanction certainly has a storied tradition at this school, that does not make it ethical. I decided to publish our speech (even though my partner Ben marginally supports the single sanction) to continue the discourse on this defining element of our university. Every few years the Honor Committee brings the single sanction to referendum, and hopefully one of these years it will be defeated in favor of a more just system.

Service-learning: About giving or recieving?

I have a lot of qualms with the "hug an orphan" service trips which are frequently marketed in college campuses, most of which revolve around thoughtlessly enabling white, upper-class privilege. In these trips, which range from visiting orphanages in Guatemala to clinics in Tanzania, students are encouraged to "do good" by going abroad and imposing their notions of development on communities who lack the power to reject their advance. In the meantime, students can turn a blind eye to poverty in their own community and their role in perpetuating global inequality.

The students have a privilege afforded by their wealth that gives them-- and morally justifies-- their global mobility. On one hand, inexperienced college students are celebrated for "playing doctor" in small rural communities in Africa or attempting to build houses in Nicaragua. On the other, when people from other cultures come to the US to contribute to our economy-- much like undocumented workers from Latin America do-- we do everything we can to make them feel unwelcome.

Anyway, yesterday UVa's newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, published an editorial I wrote in response to a Youth- Nex study which found that UVa service-learning projects "succeed." The study defined success purely in terms of the project's impacts on students, ignoring the consequences for communities they visit. I refer to a 2011 Jefferson Public Citizens (JPC) project in Jamaica where the students tried to ecologically remodel a house without a building permit, resulting in the eviction of a woman (who then became homeless) and the demolition of the historic building. By the terms of the Youth-Nex study, the project "succeeded" because they students learned from their mistakes and improved their communication skills. The effects on the woman and her family & the historic district were ignored. If the University is serious about service-learning (which is an idea that needs more critical examination in the first place), then it needs to value the impacts of its projects on students and community members equally.

So, if you're interested, check out my editorial "Re-evaluating JPC's success." More importantly, let's change the conversation on service-learning projects so that it's not merely about the students. Giving a service isn't "good" in and of itself- there needs to be more consideration for what exactly the community is receiving, if they want it in the first place, and what the long term impact will be. And that should be the first priority.

Let's even reevaluate why there is such an impulse for these projects in the first place.

Reflections on Lake Titicaca

Taquile and Lake Titicacaca

After preparing for three weeks in Lima, I just recently returned from spending nearly three weeks in Puno, Peru studying the cultural impact of rural home stay tourism (turismo rural viviencial) on the islands of Amantaní and Taquile on Lake Titicaca. None of it would have been possible without my lovely friend and research assistant Jenni from La Ruiz whose thoughtful questions enriched the quality of my research. After conducting over 50 interviews, living with four different host families, and spending countless hours observing and interacting with the islanders, I'm left with a notebook full of transcriptions, a camera full of memories, and a head full of thoughts and unresolved questions, including the somewhat superficial question of how to explain the broad social and cultural changes in the islands in a blog post.

Amantani's leaders addressing the town on Sunday

Although neighbors Amantaní and Taquile both rely on tourism as their only source of revenue (outside of artisan crafts- a subsidiary of tourism- and remittances from migrant workers), their experiences with tourism are surprisingly distinct. Whereas Taquile has a longer experience with tourism (it became the first rural community in South America to develop a type of home stay cultural tourism in the 1970s), the islanders there are also much more disillusioned and distant. That's not to say that Amantaní's experience is perfect, but the residents there have been organizing themselves to mitigate the strongest negative effects of the capitalist industry of tourism: the erosion of the community in favor of the individual.

Our amigo Franklin

On Amantaní, our host family welcomed us with open arms, and Jenni and I quickly befriended the children of the household. Because the teachers had been on strike in the region for a month, we made sure to take a little bit of time each day to play games with our new friends, whose curiosity and thirst for knowledge was inspiring. Overall, the amantaneños were optimistic and excited to welcome tourists into their home. Most everyone was proud of the new law that the mayor passed this year, the Law of Rotation, which rotates tourists between each of the 10 communities on the island to more equitably distribute the benefits (all under the oversight of the recently established Tourism Committee). Then again, the islanders seem to invest so much hope in tourism out of necessity. Fierce competition in the past pushed prices so low that few have recovered from the large investments they made in constructing rooms and bathrooms for tourists. The economic benefits from tourism are often sighted as the strongest benefits of tourism, enabling families to buy more nutritious food and school supplies for their children, but they still aren't substantial. Nevertheless, a spirit of optimism persists in Amantaní.

One of our host dads, Celso, a critic of tourism.

Yet when we arrived in Taquile a week later, we immediately felt a thick distance between us and the islanders. We were served different food in a separate kitchen according to what they thought tourists liked (omelets, french fries, white rice). "En provencia" (or in the countryside) it's common courtesy to greet someone when you pass by them on the mountain paths, in Taquile half of the islanders ignored our greetings. Many denied our requests for interviews and some even accepted but didn't end up showing up to the interview.

What happened?

Provoked by the neoliberal reforms of President Alberto Fujimori in the 90's and the greedy ambitions of Punean tour agencies, Taquileans slowly abandoned the community organizations which once regulated tourism for the greater benefit of the community in favor of more lucrative structures. Although Taquile's main attraction is its cultura viva ("live culture"), the old culture is only maintained superficially. The islanders wear their trajes de fiesta (formal traditional cloths) every day in the streets, but frequently don more comfortable and warm modern clothing in their homes. The men and women continue knitting their artisan wares ( recognized by the UN in 2005 as a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity) although they now produce lower quality items such as hats, berets, and gloves because of the tourist demand. Yet while these visible symbols of culture persist (albeit very forcefully), the spirit of the community has disappeared. 

Taquilean crafts in their collective.

In the past, the residents of Taquile lived through subsistence agriculture, not being able to grow enough to sell, but enough to trade with nearby communities. Public works were central to the development in the island. Ayni- an ancient Inca form of reciprocity- meant that if your family member needed to build a house that you would help for free, as you could count on your family member to return the borrowed labor when you needed to construct a house. Hoy para mí, mañana para ti. Accustomed to the income from tourism and capitalistic habits learned when working as migrant workers in urban areas of Peru, islanders now expect to be paid. Instead of working together, there is competition, conflict, greed, and envy in many parts of public life, and many islanders are conscious of it.

Furthermore, the islanders' own desire to receive more tourists has led taquileños to construct more rooms to the point that tourists outnumber them in their own homes, explaining why islanders now retreat to eat in a separate kitchen in order to maintain their privacy and intimacy. However, the human connection, intercultural exchanges, and relationships that once made community tourism so valuable have disappeared as a result. Because of this hostility (and the unsolved problem of the lack of running water) only about 10 of the daily 200-300 tourists that visit the island stay the night there, meaning a huge loss of revenue for the islanders. Whereas Taquile used to be self-sufficient, now there is a complete dependence on the highly volatile tourism industry. Many taquileños commented powerful statements such as "Tourism is life" or "Without tourism there is no life." This once self-sufficient island now seems to have very little control of the lucrative industry of tourism, which is running wild and nearly unchecked.

Globalization in action.

While the cultural changes on the islands need to be understood within a larger context of globalization, climate change (which has negatively effected the crops, especially on Amantaní), rural-urban immigration, and the emergence of neoliberal politics, there is no doubt that tourism, by far the greatest source of supplementary income for the islanders, has served as a potent catalyst for cultural change.

There is still so much to be said and so much to be learned. Overall, my experience on the islands was bitter sweet. I am so incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to meet such intelligent and interesting people and to explore the history, cultural, and nature of the islands (from the terraced mountains with roaming sheep to the tranquil shore of the Lake Titicaca to the unbelievably clear sky in which you can see the Milky Way). I'm equally thankful for the insight of Punean intellectuals like Martha and Christian who have refined my study and helped me to synthesize my thoughts. Yet it's devastating to see the effects of tourism and to have been part of this fundamentally unsustainable system. I can only hope that Amantaní continues to move the right direction by recovering community control of the industry, and that Taquile follows its example. There is still so much to say about the changed impulsed by tourism, and hopefully I'll have time for more detailed posts later. In the mean time, I'm more than happy to talk about my project with anyone and hear thoughts and comments.

***

Disclaimer: I don't want to discourage anyone from visiting the islands, as I really did enjoy my experience there and the industry is crucial to their livelihood; however, do recognize that the process of cultural/ community/ home stay tourism is inherently unsustainable. If you do decide to go to Taquile or Amantaní, don't just stay a few hours- stay a few nights and develop a relationship with your family outside of the capitalistic relationship of just paying them for their service. Avoid tour guides and agencies, which are known to not pay the families their asking price and to not pay on time, and take a collective boat to get to the islands and pay the family directly. Respect the local laws of rotation, and don't buy crafts from children (though feel free to give them school supplies, something for which their parents have repeatedly expressed gratitude). Respect the local culture, including its changes.

Culture is not something that is frozen and exists apart from time, as the guides would have you believe. Culture changes, but the question is whether it changes willingly or because of exogenous forces. Tourism has impulsed both kinds of changes, for better or worse.

***

You can read my thesis here: “TOURISM IS LIFE” - Reflections on The Cultural Impact of Tourism on Amantaní and Taquile, Islands on Lake Titicaca in Puno, Peru. Copyright Krista O'Connell 2012. Please cite/ attribute when using.

Finding my way back to Lima

Flying over the Andes

I can still hardly believe it, but I'm back in Peru, thanks to an undergraduate research grant from UVa to study the effects of cultural tourism on local identities. While I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity, undertaking an independent research project has been much more difficult than I had previously imagined. It takes discipline, perseverance, creativity, and, of course, an a mastery of BS. Thus, I was initially anxious to leave the comfort of my home, the company of my friends and family, and the familiarity of my summer job to embark upon my own abstract adventure. I was disappointed that I couldn't be a part of the rallies against the Board of Visitors at UVa. Yet as my plane flew over the Andes on its way south to Lima, I began to smile in memory and anticipation of the wonders of this beautiful country.

I'm staying close to where I was last year in a casa de extranjeros. Maria, the empleada/ maid of the house, runs everything with smiling grace. She is a fantastic cook, and already I've been able to enjoy some of my favorite dishes. Every morning she prepares fresh juices from local fruits like mandarinas (oranges), maracuya (passion fruit), chirimoya, and the like. As wonderful as the house is, I was angered to discover that Maria and her sons share the smallest room of the house even though it is her effort which makes this house run. As much as I love Peru, the inequality here frustrating. Yet unlike in the US, which seeks to mask and deny its poverty, here it confronts you at every turn.

The patio of the Bibloteca Nacional

As for my reason for being here, I'm still in the process of organizing interviews with professors and tourists experts here, so I unfortunately haven't been able to do too much yet (besides practice my begrudgingly rusty Spanish). I went to the Biblioteca Nacional de Perú (National Library), however, last week and found some helpful books. It's fascinating to see how a library operates in a different country. For example, the library here maintains separate reading rooms for each general subject, and you can only take out one book at a time. The librarians give you a separator to put on the shelf when you take the book out so you can return it to its proper place. Good idea, imho. However, I wasn't allowed to bring my notebook into the library to take notes to my chagrin. Apparently they've had a problem with lazy students tearing out the pages from the books and hiding them in their notes, so visitors can only take notes on loose leaf paper.

It's somewhat strange to so immediately jump back into everyday life here. In my first day back I had already taken a handful of combis (the chaotic local buses), bought some trinkets from a street vendor, and made some new friends. I went out with Melissa Sue, a wonderful friend, and company to Help, a bar named after the Beatles song that happened to be having Funk Night last week. It's always surprising to see which aspects of North American culture Peruvians decide to embrace.

Overall, I'm grateful and elated to be back in Peru. It's like a second home. Coming back I've encountered and hence remembered so many things that I had once forgotten. Street names, the rhythm of the combis, the city's smells, everyone's kind demeanor... I can't call it culture shock, as I've been here before and am familiar with Peruvian customs, but it's crazy to think how this world exists simultaneously with my Virginian world in the US and how I have the privilege to jump between them.

Yet some things have changed, of course. Old construction projects have finished and new ones are in progress. New graffiti and murals line the streets. Ollanta, once the popular progressive president, has moved to the right, much like Obama. Yet many of the same people still work at La Ruiz (and even remember me). Gatos still curiously occupy Parque Kennedy. The UVa summer students that are here complain about everything. The world spins on, and I am but a spectator granted my short life to observe all that I can.

Wagers Rage On

As of today, 19 students have been fasting for 11 days.

The enthusiasm of the folks behind the UVA Living Wage campaign is truly inspiring. In addition to the now 19 hunger strikers, dedicated supporters have been rallying from 10am - 5pm for over a week outside the Rotunda, maintaining a constant presence to remind the University of its obligations. I've been able to make it out to three of their recent rallies in the past week, and although the song remains the same, it becomes more inspiring each time I hear it. The collective spirit present at the rallies leads it to take on its own character that makes it even greater than the sum of our individual experiences, and, as more and more people show up, the voices becomes stronger and more colorful, creating a chorus that will not be silenced.

Joseph, a football player who's striking.

It's empowering to be surrounding by nearly one hundred people willing to march, shout, and strike for social justice. The strength of a united voice shouting "The people united will never be defeated!" or "1-2-3-4 No one should be working poor/ 5-6-7-8 U-V-A Living Wage!" cannot be denied. It's beautiful to see so many diverse people showing solidarity with the campaign, whether employees, students from different schools at UVA, community members, athletes, professors, club members, or other wagers from other universities. The collective voice of the wagers is full and powerful- it spans a dynamic range of experiences and backgrounds that overwhelms the heterogeneous voice of the Board of Visitors (who represent a very privileged, exclusive tradition).

The new relationships that form as supporters introduce themselves, ask questions, and share their experiences is similarly precious. It's nice to see a public space like the Rotunda steps being used for socioeconomic activism. I've met some inspiring people after rallies, including Joseph, a football player striking on the campaign and students who work alongside employees. The genuine compassion of all of the wagers is visible from the students who are loudly and passionately chanting to those who are on hunger strike and speak with a tired, raspy voice.

The hunger strikers outside Madison Hall last Thursday.

I couldn't help but be reminded of the energy I felt in the Fujimori Nunca Más march in Peru, especially as UVa wagers shouted, "Un pueblo unido nunca será vencido" in solidarity with UVA's latino employees. Yet the Living Wage is a different cause for me. It is more intimate and ingrained in the community that I live in. I interact with underpaid workers every single day at school before, in between, and after classes. Yet it is in my classes where I learn about the values of socio-economic justice and why workers' deserve a dignified wage. I don't want to continue to live in an environment of hypocrisy, which is why I am compelled to join in the discourse, dialogue, and chorus supporting the UVA Living Wage campaign.

It's frustrating, however, to not be heard despite the broad base of support. Five representatives of the campaign, including professors, grad students, and an employee met with President Sullivan yesterday. Although the meeting was on good terms, there has been no progress towards a living wage. How much longer will the hunger strike have to continue? The campaign needs more voices and more bodies for it to succeed. Get involved and speak out!

~
UVA Living Wage Campaign Website
Sign the Change.org Petition 

Photos courtesy of me! Feel free to use under a Creative Common's License with attribution.

A UVa tradition of injustice begets a tradition of activism

I’ve been a sideline supporter of the UVa Living Wage campaign since I attended a rally first semester of my second year. Today I went to a rally in front of the Rotunda to encourage the Board of Visitors to adopt a living wage, and I was surprised by the extent of the enthusiasm, dedication, and sense of community among the wagers and hunger strikers. One speaker, a former Georgetown student activist native to Charlottesville, wisely observed that while the University has a tradition of injustice, it also has a tradition of social organization to fight said injustices. The Living Wage campaign has been active for over fourteen years at the University, and its rallies, marches, petitions (from students, community members, & professors), and sit-ins, however, have been unsuccessful. Left with no other options, students of the Living Wage campaign initiated a hunger strike five days ago. Realizing the severity of the situation, I decided to find out more about the campaign and get more involved.

At the heart of the campaign is the desire for economic justice- a value that is taught in UVa’s classrooms but hypocritically not observed by its administrators, including University President Theresa Sullivan who edited a book that wrote that a living wage was necessary for workers to achieve “self-actualization.” A living wage, however, is also needed for basic surivival. The number itself is the calculated as the minimum needed for a family of four (with two working adults and two children) to meet basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, utilities, etc. The UVa Living Wage campaign, using information from the Economic Policy Institute, is fighting for the wage of $13/ hour + benefits for over a thousand of direct and contracted workers at UVa.

17 students are on hunger strike for the campaign.

One of the reasons that I was originally hesitant to get involved in the campaign was because I was wary of the lack of employee involvement in the campaign. Why should college students try to speak for hardworking adults? I secretly wondered if the members were motivated by the guilt from being over-privileged college students.  Needless to say, I was wrong about both things. UVa employees have tried to speak out in favor of their rights- only to be reproached and threatened by their supervisors. One woman was silenced after attending a rally during her lunch hour. Two employees that were walking by a rally and shouted in solidarity were captured on camera and were forced to have a meeting with their supervisors the next day. The fact is, UVa workers do not have the right to organize, and it is up to the students and faculty who benefit from their service to fight for their rights. It is our duty as part of the so-called "community of trust."

Charlottesville is a unique city- its poverty rate is three times the average for Virginia while its cost of living exceeds the average. And the city's largest employer is the University of Virginia. Yet direct and contracted workers do not make enough to provide for their families. Contracted Aramark workers that serve food in the university’s dining halls have to rely on foodstamps and food pantries to get their own food. Others have to work second and third jobs, despite, in many instances, having some college education. The University is insulting the dignity of their workers and all the students and faculty who stand in solidarity with them.

The University can afford to give workers a living wage, much like other leading private and public universities ranging from Yale to UC-Berkeley. UVa is not a small business that will have to decrease its employment to fund wage increases; it is a multi-billion dollar institution. Instituting a living wage would cost less than a one percent of its operating budget, but, more importantly, it will affirm the values of social justice taught in its classrooms.

The University has a dark history of racism, sexism, and workers’ oppression. Some workers still refer to the system in place at the school as a “plantation.” However, as one rally speaker wisely noted today, the University also has a strong tradition of fighting for social and economic justice, and we are on the right side of history. So,What do we want? A LIVING WAGE. When do we want it? NOW. 

**Get involved! Sign the Change.org Petition (almost 1,000 signatures so far!) 

Source: UVA Living Wage Website

Photo courtesy of the UVA Living Wage's Facebook