University of Virginia Library

Candidates Issue Policy Statements On Honor Committee Reform

The following questions were presented to
the candidates for President of the College and
their answers are printed below:

1. What makes you different from the other
candidates for President of the College? Do you
see yourself as a traditionalist, a reformer, or
what?

2. Do you think the single penalty,
permanent expulsion from the University, is
too severe? Do you think the scope of the
system should be limited?

3. Do you agree with the current Honor
Committee's decision in the Vending Machine
case?

Vice-Presidential candidates were also asked
to respond to a question from the Cavalier
Daily and their answers are printed below:

4. Do you feel that there is too much
secrecy surrounding the decisions of the Honor
Committee? If so, please explain what methods
you would use to make more public the
operations of that Committee.

Tom Bagby

I feel that I am different from other
candidates for President of the College due to
my contact with many diverse sections of the
student body. I feel that through these
contacts, I have been able to accurately
evaluate student opinion concerning our Honor
System. I feel that my activities at the
University and my sincere interest in the
well-being of the Honor System, in addition to
my intention to devote full time and attention

to my position, make me different from the
other candidates.

I do not see myself as either a traditionalist
or a reformer, but rather one who seeks a
rational, realistic approach to our Honor
System. I feel that I can be to some extent both
traditionalist and reformer depending on the
situation and the factors involved. I do not fear
change, but cannot condone change without
reason.

2) While I personally feel, on mainly
theoretical grounds, that the system maintains a
sounder basis with the single sanction of
expulsion, I also feel very strongly that the
system can only function with a consensus
support from the student generation involved.
Therefore, if it can be determined that a large
number of students are not supporting the
system due to the penalty of expulsion, then
the single sanction of expulsion should be
reviewed.

I feel that any limitation of the scope of the
honor system at this time would have to be a
radical one. I fear a codification of the system
if various areas are carved out and excluded
from within the jurisdiction of the present
system. I feel that if a change in the system has
to be made in concurrence with student
opinion, that this change should come in the
area of the penalty rather than in further
limitation of the scope.

3) I believe that the Vending Machine case
was an extraordinary one due to the amount of
pretrial publicity and the actual numbers
allegedly involved in the actions. The question
in the end was not whether an offense had
occurred, but whether that offense was
reprehensible enough to warrant expulsion
from the University. Ideally, the Committee
would be able to poll student opinion in every
case to determine whether our student
generation believed an offense so reprehensible
as to warrant expulsion. Since this is not
possible, the Honor Committee can only feel
for student opinion and then try to interpret
this opinion. I think that the Honor Committee
acted in good faith, believing that a consensus
of student opinion did not feel the act
reprehensible enough to warrant dismissal. I
think that this case points to certain areas of
our system that may be weak and I feel that the
Committee must follow up their statement with
some action of clarification or reform.

Mike Capobianco

— Ed.

The Honor System is supposedly based upon
a general student "consensus of honor" here at
the University. But, as it turns out, the students
are preselected to fit the present format of the
system — there is a section in the application
form where a student must agree to support the
system or he will not even be considered for
admission. Further, although the code claims to
represent the students, in my two and one-half
years as a student here I can not remember
being asked even once if I want it — only if I
will obey its, tenets. All candidates rant about
how they are going to make the code more
responsive to student opinion. My candidacy is
the purpose of discovering this opinion on
the most obvious level: whether the students
want an Honor System or not. In order to
answer this basic question, I am attempting to
turn this election into a referendum. If you
support the system and want to see it

continued, vote for any of the other six
candidates — their platforms are virtually
identical. If you oppose the system, this is your
first and perhaps only chance to make that
opposition known by voting for me.

I am opposed to the Honor System. The
reasons for my opposition are many.

First of all, the code fails to take into
account the actual extent of its penalties. If I
were to be thrown out of the university now, I
would not be able to get back into any school
until June at the earliest. My draft no, is 66,
and the Selective Service Board for my area,
being as tenacious as it is, would undoubtedly
get me before then. I would be inducted, go
through the absolute torture of basic training
for six weeks or more, then undoubtedly
brainwashed and sent to Viet Nam.
Immediately after that, I would probably be
found dead, a piece of shrapnel embedded in
my groin. The offense — lying: the penalty — death.

If the penalties were reduced, it would be
tantamount to abolishing the system anyway.
Lesser penalties would do little good, and
would indeed provoke contempt among the
student body. A system such as this is prevalent
throughout the U.S., examples being found at
VPI, NVCC, and Madison.

Second, if real learning were taking place at
the University, then cheating would be a crime.
However, since the University is rapidly
changing into a draft sanctuary only, and the
educational process is practically nil, cheating is
not only justified, but is actually a rational
response to a useless system.

Third, stealing should and can only be
prosecuted under law.

Fourth, the system is selectively enforced.
The average student will no longer turn
someone in, especially for a minor violation.
Only when there is an annul cretin around do
such violations get reported.

Honor is a personal code, and can not be
classified into such limited categories as lying,
cheating, and stealing. The only true code of
honor is that which is dictated by the Golden
Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you." Of course, this code cannot be
formalized into a set of rules that are easy to
follow.

If the only arguments that can be mustered
in favor of the system have to do with being
able to cash checks and take un proctored
exams, I will at least work to have the name
changed to the Convenience System.

I, therefore, pledge to vote "not guilty" in
all honor trials.

Alan Featherstone

1) To my knowledge, I am the only candidate
for the office of President who favors a system
of graduated penalties in which permanent
expulsion from the University would still
remain as a penalty — but only as the most
severe punishment for only the most heinous
offenses. I consider myself to be neither a
traditionalist nor a reformer. I only claim to be
contemporary.

2) The single penalty — permanent expulsion
from the University — is too severe because, in
practice, it is the only penalty. I favor a system

of graduated penalties for students found guilty
of an honor violation in which a unanimous
vote is required for permanent expulsion from
the University & instead of the four-fifths now
required. Any lesser vote would require a lesser
penalty or acquittal.

The honor system should be concerned with
all actions of students in which reliance is
placed upon them as being University students.
With the scope of the system thus denied; any
limitation of the system by geographical
boundaries is superfluous.

3) Concerning the Vending Machine case I
know only what was reported in the CD. Given
this limited knowledge I will venture an
opinion. I am pleased that the Honor
Committee took the initiative to reverse itself
when it felt it had acted unjustly. The question
in this case centers around the student opinion
of the seriousness of this offense. My
knowledge of current student opinion on the
case suggests that the Honor Committee acted
correctly under the present system. However,
the overwhelming consensus among students is
that the case should not have resulted in an
acquittal — which may be a timely argument
for a system of graduated penalties.

Kip Klein

1) The Honor Code must be constantly open to
revision by the student body in order to
survive. There are some candidates who
advocate working within the framework of the
Honor Code as it is now. There are others who
touch upon the ideas of limited scope and
graduated penalties; however, they tend to
underemphasize these points. It is my belief
that the questions of scope and penalties are
the most important subjects of the election. It
is for this reason that I have stressed them in
my platform. These areas must bend with the
changing winds of student opinion if the Honor
System is to work. This is why I state, in all
seriousness, that the Honor Code, to be
effective, must be flexible.

2) There seems to be a growing consensus
among the student body that the single penalty
system is too harsh in many situations. A
referendum should be held, and the Honor
System should be changed in compliance with
student opinion. The decision must lie within
us, the students; for it is our Honor Code. As
for my personal beliefs, I hold the opinion that
a graduated system of penalties should be
enacted. Honor, like any other absolute in this
world, must be tempered with reality. When we
act, we do not ask ourselves if our actions are
perfectly good or absolutely bad. Instead, we
ask ourselves questions of relativism. Along this
line, our penalties should not be absolute but
graduated according to the seriousness of the
offense.

The Honor Code is now binding anywhere in
Albemarle County. This means that there are
many areas in which the system is now binding
yet unenforceable. Such a situation leads to a
decline in respect for that system. I believe that
we should omit these areas by limiting the
scope of the Honor Code to the University, all
University functions, and all situations in which
the student represents the University. This
would include dealings between the students
and townspeople.

3) In the recent vending matching case the "all
or nothing" penalty system proved to be an
enormous handicap. I believe that stealing two

soft drinks should not warrant expulsion;
however, I also believe that such an incident is
an honor offense. The Honor Committee,
through its decision to drop the case, caused a
great deal of controversy and polarization
among the students. The committee, by
recognizing that this incident is an honor
offense and taking no action, has thrown a large
inconsistency into the Honor Code. For these
reasons I do not agree with this decision. The
Honor Committee would have caused less
polarization and inconsistency if it had used a
graduated penalty in this case. The power of
change should be used carelessly; but in this
case, however, it should have been used.

Gerald Lientz

I am a real independent, having ties to no
organization or supporters, and will do my best
to serve all the students in the college. If forced