The Cavalier daily :: Wednesday, February 25, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

Many students at the University
view the Honor System as a very
static institution which has been
relatively the same ever since its
conception in the nineteenth century.

This belief is far from the truth
as a look back at the 128 years of
the system's history will indicate.
Members of the Committee have
characterized this history as a
"dynamic spirit" which has repeatedly
incorporated change when
necessary to reflect student opinion
or student mores of the times.

Varied Outlines

Whenever an Honor Committee
wishes to make a change in the
procedure or trust of the system, it
seeks to reflect the current values
of the student community, which
have long been the accepted measuring
rod for the reach of the
system. In other words, the system
has many broad outlines which can
at times vary according to the
necessities of the times.

The guiding principle for the
Committee when it considers possible
changes in the system is the
consensus of the student body on a
particular issue. This has been quite
difficult in this past.

At the time of the beginnings of
the system student-faculty relations
were tremendously strained. Students
lived under almost military
discipline enforced by the faculty.
As one young writer expressed it in
1849: "The first thing for you to
learn is that College life should
properly be regarded as a state of
war against the faculty, who are
your natural enemies."

Fatal Shooting

The troubles reached a climax
when Professor John A.G. Davis
was shot and mortally wounded on
the Lawn while attempting to quell
a disturbance being caused by two
students. As a result of the horror
of the event, Professor II. St.
George Tucker proposed a pledge
for academic examinations: "I,
A.B., do hereby certify on honour
that I have derived no assistance
during the time of this examination
from any source whatever, whether
oral or written in print, in giving
the above answers."

Gradually the informal system
spread from just the classroom to
all phases of a student's life. After
the Civil War the system continued
to grow due to the homogeneous
nature of the student body during
the period.

Honor Committee Reversed 1956 Policy Concerning Liquor Last Year.

In 1886 the YMCA's Student's
Handbook that the informal system
had become truly consolidated:
"Discipline is maintained on the
'honor system,' a characteristic
feature of this institution. The
student's word is accepted as truth,
testimony is voluntary and not on
oath. He is subject to no espionage
and even on examinations is permitted
to guarantee the honesty of
his work by pledging his work of
honor. This honor system exists,
too, in the dealings of the students
among themselves, and everything
bordering on dishonesty and dishonor
is frowned upon."

Self-Government

It was not until the twentieth
century that any sort of student
self-government appeared on the
Grounds. The Honor System was a
fairly informal understanding between
students and faculty.

In 1904 it was generally understood
that a student could appeal
an accusation to a jury made up of
members of his own class for final
arbitration. By 1909 the informal
agreement was systematized into a
formal Honor Code. In his study of
the system Thomas Taylor observed
that "the armour of Victorian
morality and southern idealism had
been so frequently pierced and the
student body was so much larger
and more diverse that a more
formal and consistent approach was
necessary."

The current procedure employed
by the Honor Committee
evolved through various additions
and changed in this century. The
Bad Check Committee is a relatively
new creation of the 1950's.

Perhaps the central issue which
has dominated the history of the
system is exactly how far the
Honor Code should extend. Of
course, in the beginnings the system
was strictly limited to the classroom,
but as the years passed
"honor" encompassed more and
more subjects.

Gambling Pledges

For instance in 1913 a series of
regulations in the form of honor
pledges were enacted on the subject
of gambling. Most University students
are familiar with the old
dance pledge which prevented
inebriated students from attending
the then popular University wide
balls.

One can observe how fast the
scope of the system can change by
remembering that in 1956 the
Honor Committee formally announced
that lying for liquor
constituted an offense. Only last
year as the result of student polls
and legal complications the Committee
decided to reverse that
policy.

In fact when the Committee
decided last year that the system
should only apply to student life
"all actions of students in Charlottesville,
Albemarle County and
in addition actions in other situations
where a student acts thinking
that reliance by some one of those
affected by his action will be placed
on his status as a University
student, it relied upon the history
of the system to justify the changes.

They noted that "the System is
inevitably and dangerously
weakened to the extent that offenses
seemingly within its coverage
are openly tolerated by a given
student generation." They pointed
to the original purpose of the
system and history of "dynamic
change" which reflected the values
of any particular student generation.

Greatest Danger

Present Chairman Whitt Clement
has stated that the greatest danger
to the system is a lack of consensus
by the students on any provision of
the Honor Code. Former member
of the Committee Terry Cox noted
that "this system can hardly be
successful and effective without
near total support of the students."

Altering Code

So the history of the Honor
System indicates change when absolutely
necessary to maintain the
critical consensus of the students as
to its worth and value. On the
shoulders of the members of the
Committee is placed the often
difficult responsibility of measuring
student opinion and altering the
Code when necessary without
losing its basic values.

Next: The trial procedure currently
used by the Committee.