University of Virginia Library

Honor Candidates

Chris Mallis

into the absurdity of attaching some label to
my beliefs, I would probably be classed as a
progressive independent traditionalist.

In considering the honor system, it is
important to remember that this is not a legal
system; rather, it is a system developed trying
to establish a semi-ideal society based on
individuals being able to trust one another in all
serious matters, as well as being worthy of the
support of the members of the surrounding
community. For this reason I support the one
penalty of permanent expulsion as the most
logical punishment for such offenses, and also
believe that the present scope of the system
covering stealing, lying and cheating within the
bounds of Albemarle County is the most
reasonable limit to place on the system.

It is rash to try and judge a case from the
limited material printed in the CD. However, if
I saw students stealing drinks from an open
machine with no intention of paying for them,
I would consider those students to be guilty of
an honor offense. I feel that Food Service and
all other groups who depend on the honesty of
students for their success were greatly
encouraged by the recent case.

Chris Mallis

—Ed.

Robert Proutt

I do not agree with the Honor Committee's
decision concerning the vending matching case
and in my opinion they should have been
permanently dismissed. To quote from a
pamphlet entitled The University of Virginia
Honor System, "One of the things you might
find worth discussing is the severity of this one
penalty. There have been many students who
have felt that it's not fair. We should give a man
a second chance — suspend him perhaps for a
year on the offense, let him back in, and on the
second offense maybe kick him out forever. Or
if it's just a little lie or a little theft fine him or
suspend him for a day or two." I say to this
that there are no degrees of honor. However if
they were correct in assuming that this incident
was not "classified as dishonorable by the
public opinion of the student generation
involved," then the Honor Committee made the
right ruling. But this decision is left to the
discretion of the Honor Committee without
any established provisions for securing student
opinion. For this reason I am stressing that
formal channels should be created in the form
of referendums and polls by which the general
student body consensus could be obtained.

Robert Proutt
Tom Buchanan

—Ed.

We are deeply concerned about the waning
faith of the Honor System. Ours is not to
dictate the direction we personally feel the
system must go, but rather to guide the system
in the direction that will yield greater student
support. We have no fear of instituting the
changes deemed necessary by the student body
as shown by a professionally assisted poll. We
feel that it is time for an extensive evaluation of
the entire system, if we are to maintain its
present high degree of honor. We do not view
ourselves as traditionalists or reformers, but as
open minded individuals who will strive to make
any change that will improve the effectiveness
of our system.

We personally feel that the single sanction of
expulsion is one of the cornerstones of the
Honor System. It is becoming evident, however,
that students are finding it increasingly difficult
to support the system, except in the most
flagrant cases of cheating. They seem to feel
that the possibility of expulsion is too severe to
ever accuse anyone of a lesser offense. We don't
feel the answer to this problem is a system of

graduated system of penalties. This would force
the Honor Committee to arbitrate degrees of
honor and would create more problems than it
could solve. A more equitable solution would
be to maintain the single sanction but reduce
the severity to, perhaps, one year. But we must
consider the two questions of scope and
penalty together for one inevitably influences
the other. The current penalty of expulsion
seems to be responsible for eliminating certain
segments of honor — lying for liquor,
borrowing student ID's, and apparently petty
vandalism. Perhaps a reduction on the severity
of the penalty would halt this growing list of
exceptions. If the scope were further restricted
we would encounter even greater problems in
defining these boundaries. Therefore we would
more readily support a reduction in the single
sanction, and maintain the present scope as a
means of increasing student support.

We feel that the Honor Committee was
faced with a number of unfortunate
circumstances in the recent vending machine
case. But as both judge and juror they were to
decide both the guilt of the accused and
whether or not the defense was reprehensible
enough to warrant expulsion. If they felt that

Tom Buchanan

the act did not warrant expulsion, that should
have been their initial decision. But by
nullifying their original verdict they have
undermined many students' faith in the system.
Ostensibly the reason for their policy decision
was a re-evaluated consensus of student
opinion. But a small group of thirty or so
students can hardly constitute the feelings of
the majority. The entire matter could probably
have been avoided if they had had a more
accurate gauge of student opinion on which to
make a firm decision. We sympathize with the
problem of deciding whether or not to expel
someone for stealing one or two cokes but feel
that the matter was handled clumsily.

In order to bring the system back to the
student body, we need to reopen lines of
communication. As recently, as the early
1950's, the Honor Committee communicated
with the student body through various student
publications. Although we realize that
discretion must be used to protect a student's
privacy, we see no reason these channels of
communication cannot be restored. Regular
reports in The Cavalier Daily concerning the
workings of the Committee, open meetings in
which students can express ideas and periodic
meetings with counselors and Honor
Committee Advisors can all be used to open up
the system and generate more student interest
and participation. It is up to the Honor

Committee to institute these changes, but it is
the responsibility of the student body to make
them effective.

Pat Whitlow

I do feel that there is a mystical secrecy
surrounding Honor Committee decisions at the
present time, and I believe that this secrecy has
tended to alienate the committee from the
student body. Of course the rights of the
accused must be kept foremost in mind, but
several things can be done to make the
operations of the committee more public. More
extensive coverage of the facts surrounding a
conviction could be published in the CD if care
was taken to insure the anonymity of the
dismissed student and it was made clear that
these convictions would not constitute a
precedent but that each subsequent case would
be tried on its own merit without reference to a
previous case. The Honor Committee could
publish briefs periodically trying to clear up
"gray areas," and giving the activities and
general direction of the committee. A mock
trial at the end of orientation could familiarize
the students with the procedural aspects of the
committee and would in my opinion establish a
great deal of respect for the committee as well
as clearing up some questions about the system