University of Virginia Library

Students Initiate Election Referendum
On Alternative Honor Penalty System

By PARKES BRITTAIN

Several members of the Honor
Committee announced in a statement
yesterday their intention to conduct a
referendum on the proposed alternative
penalty of suspension.

The full committee decided last week
to reject the proposed changes by a vote
of seven to four as well as University-wide
student referendum on the single sanction
question, by a vote of nine to two.

Those members initiating the
referendum stressed that they are not
acting as representatives of the committee
but rather as students who feel that the
referendum should be conducted.

They stated further that their support
of the referendum does not necessarily
indicate support of the alternative
penalty system or support of the present
penalty system of expulsion.

Committee chairman Tom Bagby said
that the committee, in rejecting the
referendum, felt that the timing was
wrong for such a question to be voted
upon due to the turnovers involved in the
committee as new members take office
following the elections of March 22 and
23.

Mr. Bagby expressed "concern for the
position in which (the referendum) would
put the newly elected committee."

He also stated that "the committee
felt more publication was needed to allay
misconceptions" concerning the proposed
changes to the single sanction system and
that the committee does not have the
time to undertake such an education
process before the upcoming student
vote.

Mr. Bagby questioned the validity of a
referendum in its relation to student
opinion concerning the alternative
penalty proposal.

The statement drawn up by those in
favor of holding the referendum at the
time of the elections said that "as
members of the Honor Committee, we
know that its decision not to conduct a
referendum on the single sanction was
made in good faith and only after serious
and long deliberation."

Apathy

One of the reasons the statement
indicated that certain members of the
committee voted against the referendum
was because they felt many students were
"apathetic, uninformed about the Honor
System or not likely to vote."

"We are dissenting from the Honor
Committee's decision," the statement
read, "and are initiating a referendum
because it is our strong conviction that
not only are University students fully
capable of deciding whether the single
sanction ought to be continued, but,
moreover, they are the only ones who can
decide."

"A referendum, with all of its
imperfections, is an indispensable
indicator of student choice in this issue,"
the statement said.

It urges all students to state their
views on the proposed changes. "Every
student is asked to vote in the upcoming
referendum in order to voice his opinion
about the single sanction and to
demonstrate that he or she is ready and
competent to participate in a decision of
vital importance."

A petition signed by 5 per cent of the
student body is required before the
referendum can be called. The petition
will be circulated this week with the
referendum question on it.

Mr. Bagby indicated that the dissent
involves the timing of the referendum and
not the "ultimate desire to have input on
the question."

Among the proponents of the election
referendum are College Secretary Gib
Walton, Medical School President Tony
Castle, and Law School President Nick
Davidson.