University of Virginia Library

Schenkkan, Lewis Define Honor
In First Hearing On System

By Robin Lind
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"I would like to see the honor
system restricted to just the
academic area of student life: an
end to the lying and stealing part of
the trinity," said Pieter Schenkkan
in the first of three open hearings
on the Honor System Tuesday
night in the Honor Committee
Room on the fourth floor of
Newcomb Hall. A second hearing
will be held tonight at 8 p.m. in the
Honor Committee room.

Only two speakers came forward
on Tuesday night to give their views
on the scope of the Honor System
at a hearing that lasted about an
hour and ten minutes. Mr.
Schenkkan addressed the
Committee first and tried to
convince them that the Honor
System should be restricted society>
to cheating in the academic field.

No Clear Definition

He objected to the fact that
there was no clear definition of
what really constituted an honor
offense; "the closest thing we have
to a definition is the noted 'lying,
cheating and stealing' which I don't
think is close enough."

The present system is full of
"logical inconsistencies" so that a
student lying about his age to
purchase a bottle of alcohol will be
expelled if caught yet a student
may stay with his date in a motel
room registered in her name and
nothing dishonorable is imputed,
Mr. Schenkkan noted. He said he
would prefer to see it restricted to a
less confusing area of student life.

The state and federal
governments have regulations to
cover such things as stealing cars
and smoking marijuana and Mr.
Schenkkan did not feel that the
Honor System should be impelled
to cover areas that were already
covered by other agencies.

Degree Of Offense

After he presented his views the
Committee members raised some of
the following questions: What sort
of definition could be determined
for lying regarding conduct in the
Academic field? And how was the
degree of the offense to be judged?

One of the Committee members
pointed out that it would be hypocritical
for a student to pride himself
on being in an Honor System
and yet be able to steal and lie as
soon as he left the classrooms. Mr.
Schenkkan replied that the present
system was certainly not all-embracing
and while it was still
dishonorable for a student to slash
the tires on the car of a member of
the Board of Visitors it could not
be construed as a punishable Honor
offense.

Lying And Stealing

There was discussion as to
whether the Judiciary Committee
could deal with lying and stealing in
the same manner in which the
Bad Check Committee deals with
offenders; that is: to become an
honor offense after excessive violations.

Another question was what
would be the definition of academic
affairs; would it deal with
student-faculty, student-administration,
or student-student relations?

The second speaker to address
the Committee was Yale Lewis, Jr.
who is a third-year law student. He
wanted to stress the fact that there
should be a clarification of the
definition of lying, to differentiate
between the premeditated, malicious
lie which took advantage of
the trust put in a student bound by
the Honor Code, and off-hand remark
which is not clearly thought
out, but which might constitute an
honor offense.

He maintained that a person
should be given the chance to retract
a statement before being
charged with an Honor violation.
He cited instances he knew of
where a statement had been made
and then the person had realized his
mistake but felt obliged to support
the original statement for fear of
being accused of an Honor offense.

Two Situations

Specifically, Mr. Lewis' proposal
to limit lying was that the offenses
should be limited to two situations.
One would be a knowing misrepresentation
where the student by
objective conduct manifested a desire
to be taken at his word; and the
second would be that in making a
knowing misrepresentation dealing
with academic performance a student
would be considered to have
constructive notice that he was
being taken at his word.