University of Virginia Library

The Honor System

Students Call For Re-evaluation

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Seventh and Final of a Series

Both critics and defenders
of the Honor System agree that
many of the basic aspects of
the system should be the
objects of deep study and
re-evaluation.

It has been clear to recent
members of the Honor Committee
that the system has
reached another critical juncture
which could be fatal to
the ideal of a "spirit of honor"
if it does not properly adjust to
the beliefs of the present
student generation.

Terry Cox, who served on the
Committee last year, wrote that
legally, socially, and physically the
system must adjust: "Many students
wish it; coeducation seems to
require it; and its own survival may
very well rely on it."

Modification Necessary

"My first reaction is emotional.
I am disturbed over the possible
loss of something in which I
believe. Yet, I would be more upset
if the System would disappear
entirely because it was not modified
to meet contemporary values.
The Honor Committee has the
responsibility to protect the System."

This year's Committee has
attacked several surface problems
which have plagued past work with
the system. There has been a more
concentrated effort to open communication
channels between the
Committee and students. Also the
Committee has undertaken control
the mushrooming paper work and
administrative details which have in
the past forced members to spend
less time than they would like on
the deeper problems which face the
system.

'System Less Effective'

Certainly, the central obstacle to
a successful system is maintaining a
consensus of honor. Present Chairman
Whitt Clement has said, "For
any honor system to serve as an
effective code of conduct it must of
course have widespread student
support ... As the consensus of
opinion of honor lessens, the
system tends to become, regrettably,
less effective."

The scope of the system has
changed many times since its
beginning over a hundred years ago.
Critic and former student Pieter
Shenkkan argued that "there is
only one area where agreement is
possible, and where we should take
action because other large communities,
like the State of Virginia
and the United States, do not:
academic practices.

"Cheating on exams, plagiarism
and similar offenses are not covered
(by other authorities); unlike lying
about your age, cheating on an
exam injures this community far
more directly and significantly than
it does any other. So the academic
area alone should be the subject of
our concern."

Defenders of the system have
retorted that "It would be illogical
to limit the scope of Honor in just a
few areas. This would only add fire
to the argument that we say some
things are dishonorable while
others, equally wrong, are not
surely the peak of hypocrisy."

All do agree though that without
a consensus of honor the
system will not survive. Many
members of the present Honor
Committee feel that it is imperative
that next year's new Committee
painstakingly gauge student opinion
for a consensus of what exactly
should constitute an honor offense.

Legal Controversy

A more immediate problem has
been the legal controversy surrounding
the procedural aspects of
the system. Many legal observers
agree that the Committee has come
a long way in insuring a more
equitable trial for the accused with
the new appeal feature. Also by
allowing the accused to have a
non-student to help advise the
student counsel many problems
with the right to have counsel may
be sufficiently resolved.

Even with these changes though
the system inevitably will face a
legal test in federal court according
to American Civil Liberties Union
attorney John Lowe. Mr. Clement
has written that "The possibility of
a court test, whose purpose is the
imposition of a series of specifically
enumerated procedural rights, is,
however, no longer remote."

Tough Year Ahead

Students, faculty members, and
alumni who are close to the system
are in agreement that the new
members of the Committee will
face a tough term of office.
Amorphous student opinion absolutely
has to be gauged according to
the present Honor Committee.

'Living Principle'

T. Munford Boyd, a professor of
the School of Law, said to an
entering class twenty years ago: "It
would be a grievous mistake to
conceive of the Honor System as
merely the substitution of a student
police system for one managed by
the faculty. It is a united affirmation
of a living principle, a declaration
of a faith that men who have
come together in a quest for the
truth must and will live honorably
in all phases of their activities.

"Can there be any doubt that
the mutual trust engendered by this
code of honor provides an incomparable
climate for intellectual
achievement?" Critics and defenders
alike know that this question
needs to be answered.

(End Of Series)