University of Virginia Library

By Greg Hodges

Honor Referendum Called For

By Peter Shea
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"The Honor Committee has
shown its greatest strength to be its
ability to adapt to the times and to
change as the ideas of the students
at the University change."

Greg Hodges, in an interview
with The Cavalier Daily yesterday,
expressed his faith in the system
and the students who live under it,
although he urged that the system
be examined.

He noted that one of the issues
that he has stressed most in his
campaign through the dormitories
has been his advocacy of a referendum
to determine the exact opinions
of the student body in regards
to the Honor Committee.

Mr. Hodges' proposed referendum
would eliminate the need
for a "law school advisory committee"
which was suggested by one of
his opponents, Whitt Clement. "We
should make a committee of the
entire student body - ask them,
not a set committee," Mr. Hodges
proposed.

"The Honor System belongs to
the students. We have the responsibility
and ability to abolish the
system and, at the same time, have
the ability to remove someone from
school while the system is maintained.
This is indeed a big responsibility.
The Honor System must be
structured the way the students
want it. The best way to determine
student opinion is to ask them."

Mr. Hodges explained that the
referendum would take place in the
form of a questionnaire sent to
every student. Questions like "Do
you agree with the scope of the
system? Do you want to change the
scope of the system? To limit it to
academic matters? To the Charlottesville-Albemarle
area?" would be
included.

Through such an investigation,
Mr. Hodges explained, the Honor
System could "introduce a sense of
participation in the workings of the
Honor Committee that is desperately
needed."

In answer to the question of
whether or not the presidency of
the College should be a "political
position," Mr. Replied with an
emphatic no.

"The president is elected to
chair the Honor Committee and the
campaign issues pertain mainly to
the system. Mr. Murdock is seeking
a larger platform to voice his personal
views that have not been well
received on Student Council."

"The job itself requires full
time. To do a good job requires a
concentration of effort on the
Honor Committee. I am running
not for the title of President of the
College but for the job of Chairman
of the Honor Committee," he continued.

In regards to limiting the Honor
System to the Charlottesville area,
Mr. Hodges said that he did not
consider it a good idea. "If an
individual is able to lead an honorable
life at the University, he
should have little trouble doing so
outside the University," he reasoned.

However, through speaking to
other students, Mr. Hodges has
come to agree that the jurisdiction
of the system could be limited if
the students so desired. "If the
community maintained here has the
desired effect, the people would
carry it elsewhere, anyway," he
explained.

Mr. Hodges opposes any move
to limit the Honor System to academic
affairs, as has been suggested
by Charles Murdock. However, Mr.
Hodges said that he would, of
course, agree to such a cut-back if
the students supported it in the
referendum.

The candidate supported the
idea of offering open or public
trials to an accused student. If the
accused wanted a private trial, a
semi-public trial (with a 20 spectator
limit as proposed by the present
committee) or an open one, he
would be allowed to make the
choice.

Concerning the "summaries" of
the individual trials, Mr. Hodges
advocated retaining the "black
boxes" which appear in The Cavalier
Daily, but publishing every
three months a brief containing a
summary of trials. The brief would
contain no names, only the basic
evidence, the decision and the reasoning
behind it.

When asked to comment about
the possibility of Mr. Murdock
being forced to withdrew from the
race, Mr. Hodges said that this
would not be necessary. However,
should such a situation arise, he felt
that his views differed from those
of Mr. Clement enough so that the
voters would be offered a choice.

When asked to expound upon
the "difference" between Mr.

Clement and himself, the candidate
cited several points.

One of those differences Mr.
Hodges mentioned concerned the
"committee's power of compulsory
process." He also disagrees with
setting up strict guidelines for the
admission of evidence, forcing the
accused to testify and turning the
hearings into a "court of law."

"The whole issue is fairness. The
system is basically fair but certain
procedural reforms are nevertheless
necessary. The committee bends
over backwards to be fair and
should continue to do so," he
contended.

"Mr. Clement has said that he
would like to revitalize the Honor
Committee. It is my feeling that the
new members who will be elected
next week will do that themselves,"
he concluded.

Honor Committee elections will
be held on Wednesday, April 16,
and Thursday, April 17. The candidates
for Chairman are Mr.
Hodges, Mr. Murdock and Mr.
Clement.