University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Honor System: High Ideal Or Last Vestige?

In response to the Honor
System 'on trial' before a U.S.
District Court.

The Honor System is a
singular hallmark of a great
University. If it is to be
retained at U.Va. it should not
rest solely as a last vestige of
southern tradition. As law
professor Daniel J. Meador has
put it, "if a case involving a
dismissal under the Virginia
Honor System were to be tried
in court, it would be most
important from the
University's standpoint that
the full flavor and history of
the Honor System be
developed in detail."

The question of the right of
students to impose legally
binding rules on other students
has not been contested in court
since the inception of the
honor system in 1842. This
delegation of disciplinary
authority (distilled through the
State's Constitution, Title 23
of the Code of Virginia, the
Manual of the Board of
Visitors, and the administrative
authority of the President) is
now being challenged in a U.S.
District Court on
constitutional grounds.

It can be said that the
University, by its formal
support of the Honor System,
has severed the enrollment
contract between the student
and the University – and is the
responsible authority
dismissing the student.

Is the fact that the honor
committeemen act both as the
jurors of the facts and the
judges of the consequence of
these facts as issue for the
courts? Should student
autonomy continue to be the
ivy behind which ultimate fate
of a fellow student is decently
concealed?

And, will the contrast that
divides the traditional stand of
the Honor System and the
"cry" for change necessarily
become the disparity between
high ideals and low
achievement?

Old Story

The Cavalier Daily several
weeks ago printed a
colloquium by C.M. Wheeler
which seemed to blast the
First-Year Council. The truth
of the matter is that the school
newspaper was either pulling a
gigantic hoax or printed an
article that was at least three
years old.

It took over a week to get
the facts straight, but those are
startling facts. The FYC,
referred to throughout the
colloquium as the "First-Year
Committee" has been the
First-Year Council since
1969-1970. The article says
that "girls are still absent from
the dormitory;" in fact,
women have been in the dorms
since 1970-71. Several things
that were changed in 1969-70
were talked about by Mr.
Wheeler as needing changing.
Most importantly, Mr. Wheeler
has not even been enrolled in
the University since 1970-71.

Almost nothing in the
article is true for recent years;
whoever did pick this
colloquium didn't know a
thing about the FYC. Saddest
of all are the first-year students
who depended on the CD for
information. Perhaps we all
need to think twice about what
is printed in these pages.

FIJI Fiasco

At approximately 8:30
Saturday night, October 7,
1972, my date and I were
seated at FIJI Island
restaurant which is located on
the first floor of the
Downtowner Motor Inn in
Charlottesville, Virginia.

We were courteously treated
until I told the waiter that we
did not wish to order a full
meal, just desert and coffee.
The waiter frowned, took the
drink list, and walked away.
After several minutes, the
waiter returned and I ordered
bananas flambeau, coffee, and
tea. Again the waiter frowned,
this time he said something in a
foreign language and walked
rapidly to the kitchen. Shortly
thereafter, he returned, said
they were too busy to serve
that, picked up our menus,
and walked off.

I understand that they were
busy and this was perhaps not
the most convenient time to
fool with two customers who
would not run up a large tab.
However, as the restaurant is
open to the public and offers a
menu from which I made the
selection, I feel that I should
expect to be served. Nowhere
do they specify that a
customer must order enough to
arrive at some minimum
charge, or order "x" number of
courses before they will serve a
customer.

I have never heard of a
restaurant that refused to serve
customers after seating them
because they are too busy.
Indeed, I have long labored
under the illusion that
restaurants preferred to be
busy.

In short, I feel that my date
and I were treated in neither a
courteous nor businesslike
manner. If FIJI Island does
not wish to serve bananas
flambeau, they should take it
off their menu.

Moaning

Having read Fen
Montaigne's columns since the
September 11th issue of the
C.D., I have come to the
conclusion that his
contribution to the paper is
negligible at most. An incessant
moaner and groaner, he has
persistently produced a string
of complaints on what is wrong
with today's society, while at
the same time offering us
nothing in the way of
alternatives.

Many of us may tend to
agree with much of what Mr.
Montaigne has to say, but,
nevertheless, the fact remains
that until he does suggest a few
practical replacements to
what he so severely criticizes,
his comments will not be
worth the paper they are
printed on.

If you can find nothing
more worthwhile to publish
than his whimpering trash, I will
be happy to contribute
something for you.

Whipping Block

It's obvious from
the paper of October 9
that the Monday staff ran out
of ideas for editorials, because
they had to resort to the
favorite whipping-block of the
University, the Contract
Cafeteria.

Either the person who wrote
the editorial doesn't eat on
Contract this year or else
he/she doesn't like food. When
I went on Contract my first
year, they served food that
could only be described as
revolting. I suffered through
that year, vowing that I would
never eat on Contract again.
But finding the cost of eating
in C'ville as being astronomical.
I decided this year, my last
year at the U., to go back to
that former bane of my
stomach.

However, I came back to a
different Cafeteria this year.
The food, to my surprise, was
not only edible, but even good!
Who ever heard of shrimp
creole in Contract; even with
shrimp in it!! The food has
been very satisfying–I don't
even eat as well at home.

The CD should try
contract once in a while,
instead of their own words.