University of Virginia Library

Honor Chairman Candidates Give Final Statements

Campaigning for the College officers
reaches its climax tonight as voting begins
tomorrow at 8:30 to determine who will
head the Honor Committee and Bad
Check Committee for the coming year.

Ballot boxes will be open from 8:30
to 4 p.m. both tomorrow and Thursday
in the following locations: Cabell Hall,
Emmett Post Office, Newcomb Hall,
Rugby Road, Tuttle House.

Whitt Clement, Jack Rhoades, and
John McCarty comprise the Skull & Keys
slate for President, Vice-President, and
Secretary, respectively, while Greg
Hodges, Doug Hixson, and S.T. Crockett
are the Sceptre nominees for these
offices. In addition, Charles Murdock is
an independent candidate for the Presidency.

The three top candidates began
wrapping up their campaigns with statements
made yesterday to The Cavalier
Daily and in the dormitories.

Whitt Clement

Whitt Clement concluded his public statements
last night by saying "Because of the tone
set by my opponents in this campaign, there are
a few misconceptions I would like to point
out."

Mr. Clement, Skull and Keys candidate for
President of the College, attacked Charles
Murdock's demands for "specific change" and
an "activist President," and also Greg Hodges'
proposal for a student-wide referendum.

"Mr. Murdock has accused me of being
against any specific change in the system,
particularly regarding the Honor System's
scope," he noted. "But the Chairman cannot
predetermine by himself what changes should
be made; he has to determine the students'
feelings on their system as well. The present
Chairman has been trying to get a consensus to
define the scope all this year, but the task is
difficult.

"I think Mr. Murdock's conception of a very
limited Honor System would be more conducive
to an actual Honor Code than our
present spirit of honor," he continued. "We
have to have the students' support, not a mere
body of legalities; and more important, we have
to maintain trust between students during any
changes we make. We cannot simply adopt a
legal code."

In seeking what changes should be made,
however, Mr. Clement disagreed with Mr.
Hodges' proposal for a student referendum.

"This poll, which has been Mr. Hodges only
specific proposal to date, would be held to gain
feedback from the students. I feel, however,
that because of the unfeasibility in obtaining an
accurate analysis of student opinion, and
because many students would probably not
vote, such a poll should not be used as the sole
criterion for determining change.

"I have suggested employing the assistance
of the Institutional Analysis Office, as I feel it
would be a more thorough and analytical way
of providing results that could carry a great deal
of weight."

Mr. Clement also attacked Mr. Murdock's
opinion that the Chairman of the Honor
Committee should be an "activist President."
Denying the charge that he would be "tacitly
racist," he said "I too am strongly opposed to
racism. But the Chairman of the Honor
Committee is charged with a sacred trust over
the students he serves. He should not jeopardize
that trust by allowing politics to become a part
of his public work. For the President of the
College to be an "activist" would place the
entire Honor System in an unfavorable political
light regardless of the point of view involved."

Greg Hodges

"It is time for the students of this university
to re-examine the Honor System," asserted
Greg Hodges last night. "This is my primary
interest."

Mr. Hodges, candidate for President
of the College, spoke with The Cavalier Daily
last night, before beginning his final tour
through the first-year dormitories before the
election on Wednesday and Thursday. He
expressed hope that the students were aware of
his views, but wished to clarify his major
points.

"My opponents and I differ in our stands.
One seeks directionless change and a larger
platform from which to express his personal
opinions, opinions which have not always been
well-received by the Student Council. The other
opponent is content to maintain the status quo
except for the implementation of minor
procedural changes, such as the inclusion of the
power of compulsory process.

"Compulsory process," Mr. Hodges explained,
"is the cherished right of a court of law to
require the presence of an individual. It is the
power to subpoena, jealously guarded by the
judicial system, and it is a power often not
granted to governmental agencies, one of which
is the University."

But Mr. Hodges was emphatic in pointing
out that "neither directionless change nor the
implementation of minor procedural rules"
approach the real issue of the campaign. "The
real issue," he said, "is fairness. Is the Honor
System fair, and is it a system which our
student body wants?"

"I feel," he said, "that the Honor
Committee should make a provision requiring a
referendum at least every other year. This
would also have the effect of placing the
legislative power in the hands of the students
and of leaving the Honor Committee with the
judicial authority.' Mr. Hodges then went on
to explain his thoughts on change in the Honor
System. "Perhaps the system needs great
changes, and always it needs the implementation
of relevant procedural rules. More
urgently, however, the system needs student
support, and support can be no better achieved
than through students telling the committee
what type system they want.

"It is the students' system, and for a long
time this has been overlooked." Mr. Hodges
concluded his remarks by saying, "the students
want to identify with the system and they will
be better able to do this if they have a system
which is a mirror image of their ideas about
honor.

"The personalization of the Honor System is
my platform, and for that platform I solicit
your support."

Charles Murdock

"The students should be aware of the legal
ramifications of the Honor System," said
Charles Murdock, candidate for President of the
College, in a dormitory talk given Monday
night. "Right now," he added, "the Honor
System is very definitely outside of legally
permissible grounds."

Mr. Murdock stressed two areas or forces of
change he felt were essentially facing the Honor
System, "the external, legal forces" and
"internal forces, or student support."

On the question of legal force, Mr. Murdock
said "if we are going to be responsible, and not
have outside force like the courts come in and
tell us how to run our Honor System, we are
going to have to redefine the legal jurisdiction
of the system."

This redefinition would effect each of the
traditional offenses, lying, cheating, and stealing.
Punishment for lying, he felt, should be
"limited to the academic community, or cases
when the Honor System is invoked."

To this Mr. Murdock added, "right now the
Honor Committee will not convict someone
who lies in California unless it has some direct
ramification for the University." This, he felt,
was "just keeping the surface smooth."

On the other offenses of cheating and
stealing, Mr. Murdock felt punishment should
be limited to offenses in "the academic
community."

But these proposals, he felt; would be open
to student opinion, or the "internal forces. I
think we want to maintain the one penalty" he
added, "which is the backbone of the Honor
System now, and just redefine what is
reprehensible in the current student morality."

This definition would be in terms of an
"amendment process" that he felt would be
"the one thing that would put the system back
in the hands of the students.

"Right now the Honor Committee has no
constitution," he added, and felt this led to "a
decrease in student support of the system since
the students feel it is no longer responsive to
their view of honor."

In line with this, Mr. Murdock felt "full
transcripts of every case should be published,"
although not names, and "there should be a
public trial for every defendant that asks for
one."

Another procedural point he emphasised
was that "every person accused should be
advised of his rights." This would avoid the
case, he felt, where a student would leave after
committing an offense in a "transitional stage,"
actually regarded as the case of "lying to girls"
is now. This would "secure the rights of the
accused" and allow for a possible amendment.