University of Virginia Library

In Honor System

Necessity For Legal Change Cited

By Rod MacDonald
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"I want to emphasize several
differences between myself and the
other two candidates regarding the
Presidency of the College," said
Charles Murdock, candidate for
that post yesterday.

Mr. Murdock told The Cavalier
Daily that "I have proposed specific
changes which I will stand for if I
am elected. I am not using the
magic password that the Honor
System must evolve to remain vital
and then proposing no specific
changes.

Mr. Murdock released a statement
yesterday that said:

"I appreciate first of all Mr.
Clement's adopting several parts
of my platform as the core of
his platform concerning the
rights of the accused in Honor
Trial proceedings. His emphasis,
however, is one of form, not
substance.

"I have taken a position, and
Mr. Clement has moved towards
that position. But there are two
substantive points which my
opponents have entirely overlooked
and which I would now
like to re-emphasize.

"The first of these follows
from my policy statement concerning
the scope of the Honor
System. Mr. Clement was incorrectly
quoted in Wednesday's
Cavalier Daily as saying that I
proposed that the system should
be limited to the classroom.

"My platform states that
'Lying is reprehensible when
done on trust of the Honor
System specifically. Cheating
must be dealt with only in terms
of academics. Stealing can be
tried only when it occurs within
the University community.' The
point of my statement redefining
the scope is that legal exigencies
demand redefinition. Our Honor
System must limit itself to
legitimate. University concerns or
face the destruction resulting
from Court action.

"A recent district court
decision has cited a January
1968 law review article by
Professor Van Alistyne which
defines a legitimate university
concern (in cases of expulsion)
as one which "is necessary to
preserve the functioning of the
university.

"Those who are not willing to
advocate specific changes for
bringing the scope of the Honor
System within legally permissible
bounds are the ones who
are playing polities with the
System; and these are the ones
with whom the responsibility
will rest when the system is
struck down in the Courts.

"The second important point
Messrs. Hodges and Clement have
completely overlooked is my
proposal calling for a legitimate
amendment process for the
Honor System. This is the only
key to continued student support,
which is essential to the
System's continued existence.

"Any alternative decision by
the Honor Committee will render
the System hopelessly unresponsive
to the students. At the
System's inception in 1842 it
was perfectly responsive to the
people due to the size of the
student body. It was so responsive
that until 1909 there was
not even a necessity for an
Honor Committee.

"Now the University has
approached another time when
responsible change is a necessity.
Our student body is entirely too
large (9000) to deem internal
revision by a small committee
(eleven members) as being in any
way sufficient.

"Finally, Mr. Clement has
stated that if the president of the
College joins in leading the fight
against racial injustices our 99
per cent white University such
political activity demeans the
position of chairman. I think it
demeans the position of President
of the College if he can say
'I can support the ideal of honor
and at the same time I can
remain uninvolved with respect
to the ideal of racial justice.'

"Mr. Clement must realize
that not speaking out against
racial injustice is the same as
offering his tacit approval.

"Further, Mr. Clement does
not seem to realize that the role
of Honor Committee member
has never suffered in other
schools (i.e., the Law School)
where the President has taken an
active role in 'conservative' political
activity to the point of
proposing 'conservative' legislation
to the Student Council. Mr.
Clement never complained that
Josh Fletcher's judgment, as
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
was in any way hampered
by Mr. Fletcher's 'involvement'
in a radio debate against the
Coalition. Mr. Clement is implying
a double standard in not
speaking out against this 'conservative,'
outside active involvement
by important student adjudicators."