University of Virginia Library

Honor ? Elections

"For the continued well-being of the
Honor System and in the best interest of the
individual students, each student should
exercise the greatest care to keep himself free
from the suspicion of evil." (The Honor
Committee Blue Sheet)

Whether it was due to the actions of the
candidates themselves, some over-zealous
supporters, or simply to the very nature of a
political campaign, the elections for president
and vice president of the College were
thoroughly and continually clouded by
suspicions of evil and accusations of foul play.

What a discouraging situation when even
honor elections must be marred by the same
sordid politics which one would rather expect
to read about in a chapter from the history of
Tammany Hall. From the very outset of the
campaign nearly four weeks ago, we in these
offices have been plagued with rumors
concerning alleged campaign violations,
unethical behavior, poor judgment and
deceiving remarks, all of which we checked
out, but few of which we were able to
confirm. Mostly rumors ... we presume.

First, we were presented the rumor that a
certain candidate or candidates had exceeded
the spending limitations. We checked this out
but uncovered little evidence that was
substantial. Nevertheless, not one but all three
candidates were implicated in these rumors.

Later on, we were told that a certain
candidate or candidates were spreading lies
about the others throughout the dorms. We
also checked out this rumor. All we were able
to come up with, however, was that it was
just as likely that the very candidate to whom
these assaults were intended had fabricated
these tales himself with the hope that they
might be accepted as vicious attacks by his
opponent.

We were also informed late one night that
one candidate had broken campaigning
restrictions, ordering fraternity pledges to
canvass the dorms in his support. After an
extended 11th-hour meeting with the accused
candidates, Messrs. Rinaca and Sabato and
members of the campaign rules committee, we
all agreed that the best we could do at that
time in all fairness was to probe further.
Not one of the allegations was ever
substantiated.

Finally we were asked to have our
reporters investigate a number of voting
irregularities in last week's regular election. We
discovered that one candidate had taken
advantage of a ballot box which remained
open for some time after the po were to have
closed. The candidate himself confessed to
having done so, and we ran the story.

We said it two days ago and we say it
again. Our responsibility to the University
community is to inform them of not only
what is going on, but also why something is
going on. We are as much on the inside
probing the why of the news as we
are on the outside reporting it.

As with the Watergate scandal the press is
the only available organ to expose deceit,
fraud, or unfair and illegal activities. The
individual must make up his own mind as to
who is at fault. But, in any case, he has a right
to know.

We are all in agreement that this whole
election campaign stunk. Where we might
differ is where to place the blame. Student
Council might be a good place to start. Weeks
ago we approached them with the
observation that certain loopholes in the
outlined campaign rules and regulations would
prompt precisely what we have just witnessed
in this election. Yet they did nothing to
remedy the situation, and only now after the
candidates' images have been tarnished and
honor in general has been dealt a crucial blow,
do they admit to any of these inequities or
shortcomings.

It is easy to blame those who were only
playing by the rules, but how about those
who make the rules? Aren't they equally at
fault?

We hope now that all parties involved
might rise above the rumors and
scandal-mongering which have permeated this
entire election. More than anything else we
must salvage that honor which as the
keystone of this campaign has nonetheless
emerged the only real loser.