The Cavalier daily :: Friday, October 29, 1971 :: University of Virginia Library

I think that to understand the
Honor System as it now exists at
the University of Virginia, it is
important that we recount a bit of
its history. Many of you know that
we are presently in the period of
so-called campus unrest. We have
commissions on campus unrest, we
have legislative investigations, we
have a number of concerned
citizens who, together with the
media, are focusing their attention
on this seemingly unprecedented
issue. But I want to say that you
now attend a university where
campus unrest is not
unprecedented. In 1840 one
student wrote the following to one
of his peers, who was deciding
whether or not to come to the
University of Virginia:

"The first thing for you to
learn is that college life should
properly be regarded as a state
of war against the faculty who
are your natural enemies.
Virtue, or honor I should
rather say, for the former term
has become entirely
antiquated, consists of such
conduct as will not incur the
odium of the people around
you. It is that which is
commanded of the old ans
wise maxim "When in Rome
do as the Romans do." Hence,
it is that it is very dishonorable
to take a man's money but
very honorable to take his life
in a duel. The same admirable
theory will explain why if you
break a promise to obey the
laws of the college as soon as
you have made it you are not
one wit less a gentleman while
if you tell a lie about other
matters you'll be a rascal. Or
why one may, with perfect
propriety, obtain a diploma by
fraudulent means, while if he
procured a man's pocketbook
by the same means he'd be a
rogue."

That was the condition existing
in 1840 at this University. The
really sad part of it for this
University was that this particular
attitude spread like wildfire. By
1842, the faculty had enacted a
number of severe measures to
control students. In retaliation, the
students, and I for one hope that
this will not be a continuing
tradition here, took a professor out
and had him publicly flogged. That,
however, was not the end of the
matter, and one year later Professor
Davis was shot between the eyes
and killed on the Lawn of this
University. That is what I call
campus unrest! To the best of my
knowledge, nothing in the 1970's
approaches that.

That was the situation in 1840,
and it was shortly after the
assassination of Professor Davis that
students and faculty began to think
it was time to end the war. And
they did so, in part, by the
adoption of a faculty resolution
saying that students themselves
should be responsible for their own
conduct with regard to lying,
cheating, stealing, and other
offenses of honor. I think that in
order to give a realistic view of the
Honor System in 1970, we have to
realize that this initial formulation
of the system was primarily a
function of the tradition of being a
Southern Gentleman.

Despite the state of war
between students and faculty
almost all the students at this
University were at that time very
similar: they all came from the
wealthy families of Virginia. They
were all going to be wealthy
planters. With such a homogeneous
student body, one with the
Southern Gentleman tradition
strongly ingrained, the Honor
System began to flourish. My own
opinion is that if the Honor System
remains at this University solely as
some last vestige of that tradition,
it is not justifiable in 1970.

Out Of Place

The mid-nineteenth century ethic
of the Southern Gentleman is out
of place in the context of a
university that is substantially
different from the small college of
one hundred years ago. For one
thing, we have a more diverse
student body. Not only do we have
coeducation; we have people from
all over the United States attending
this University, and all in all, I do
not lament the fact that we are no
longer teaching solely the sons of
Virginia's wealthy families.

New University

So it is then that today we must
accommodate the Honor System to
the new University of Virginia, or
we must reject it. For that reason, I
have sought to articulate three
justifications for the system in
1970. There is a moral rational, a
pragmatic rationale, and what I
shall refer to as an idealistic
rationale. This attempted three-fold
distinction should not be allowed
to obscure the fact that the three
concepts I will discuss are
interrelated.

Whitebread The Advisor: Caught Climbing The Wall

I have thought a great deal
about moral systems and codes of
conduct. It is common knowledge
that many of the rigid moralistic
systems of the past have lost their
dominance in the twentieth
century. Many men have invested a
great deal of time in trying to
devise new guides for personal
conduct. For me, however, there
appears only one sufficient guide
for personal relations—only one
valid moral principle: that I should
fulfill myself as I please without
dictation from others so long as
what I do does not affirmatively
harm someone else.

Morally Unconscionable

Cheating, stealing, and lying
have at least one common
denominator. As a cheater, liar, or
thief, you intend to benefit from
someone else's harm. I find that
morally unconscionable, and I
think no society, no community,
can be maintained anywhere where
that kind of conduct is tolerated.

The issue of how lying fits into
the Honor System has been the
subject of much controversy. When
my mother, as she is want to do,
comes waltzing down the front
stairs of my house in some ghoulish
creation, and I say to her, "Boy,
that's really nice looking," when in
fact I don't believe that at all, that
is not a lie because she is not
thereby harmed. I am not trying to
benefit by her harm; I am trying to
make a social amenity. We all make
a number of untrue statements
every day.

Rid The Notion

Accordingly, this Honor System
does not define a lie as an untruth.
In this regard the system comports
with my own belief that we had
better get rid of the notion that a
lie is saying something untrue, and
adopt the notion that a lie is saying
something untrue hoping that
someone will rely on that to their
harm and to your benefit.

Turning away from the moral
justification, I would like to address
my remarks to what I call the
idealistic justification. Simply put,
the Honor System creates a sense of
community and mutual trust at the
University of Virginia in which each
individual can develop his potential
to the fullest. A university must
provide its students with an
environment in which they can
develop themselves in any way they
see fit without outside interference.
I think that as you go through this
institution you will find that the
University of Virginia has, relative
to other universities in this country,
a unique sense of community. The
sense of community here is
exemplified by the easy interchange
of ideas among you and your follow
students, and between the students
and the faculty; I think the Honor
System does a great deal to
promote that.

Not So Here

I have seen campuses in this
country where anything you can
get away with behind the
professor's back will be tolerated
by your fellows, and anything you
rip off from a fellow student is
A-okay as long as he is not a real
close friend. That is not the
situation at this campus, and I
don't think it ought to become so.
Although occasionally you will get
ripped off and something will get
stolen by somebody, I think that
you will find that the incidence of
dishonor of lying, cheating, and
stealing, is as low, if not lower, than
at any other university in this
country.

But my message does not bear
that negative connotation. I want
to say that with proper use of the
Honor System we can have here not
just the absence of dishonor, we
can have a community, and I return
to my first principle here, a
community which permits each of
us either to thrive to our fullest
potential, or to waste ourselves
without being harmed by
somebody else.

Now, there is a third
consideration that appeals to me as
a rationale for the Honor System
that is of a purely pragmatic nature.
Since I started teaching here I have
supported in every way possible an
increase in student participation in
university decision making. I think
students should have an active say
in what is going down at this
University. Because that is what I
think, I am extraordinarily
attracted to the fact that the Honor
System is entirely student-run,
student-administered, and
student-operated, without any
outside interference from faculty,
administration, or other personnel.
It is, in essence, your system, and I
hope that the system reflects the
present consensus among students
as to what is intolerable conduct in
our community.

As we turn our attention to
some of the problems of the system
we may also return to the question
of that consensus. I am certain that
you will repeatedly hear from the
people on this committee, that
twelve men cannot say what honor
is at the University of Virginia in
the 1970's. Honor offenses have
been and will continue to be those
things which you and your peers
determine to be intolerable conduct
for this community. In order to
keep this system viable, we are
going to have to reevaluate
continually what that student
consensus is. Throughout our
discussion we must remember that
this is a student system not one
imposed by the faculty or
administration.

Oft-cited Problems

I want to turn now, as I said I
would, to what are some of the
oft-cited problems with the system.
Let me begin with one that initially
bothered me the most and is
expressed in the following way:
"Doesn't an honor system, this
Honor System to be precise, require
me to become some sort of
tattletale, informer, or spy, if you
will, on my fellow students?" My
answer to that is that honor
systems at some schools do impose
such roles on the students, and for
that reason I would not support
them. This system, however, does
not rely on your running and telling
somebody, "I saw Jeanie cheat in
class."

It relies instead on your
confronting that individual directly
yourself. You are not telling on him
in that sense, you are confronting
him just as you would if you were a
lawyer and you saw people in the
legal community committing
dishonest acts. This element of
confrontation obviates the
problem of becoming a squealer or
a tattletale. Moreover, I think that
once you see the system in
operation you will realize that
people do not take these
confrontations lightly, and that
they are unlikely to stem from
trivial matters.

Now a second problem related
to and, indeed, a part of this first
one is expressed the sentiment that
"I am going to be honorable, and I
don't really care if others are not."
The problem with this attitude is
that in order to protect itself a
community must, and usually will,
set some standards for permissible
conduct. It is then the
responsibility of that community to
make sure that those standards are
upheld, not only for the protection
of the community itself, but also to
protect those who relied on the
integrity of that group.

One Sanction

A third problem is that there is
only one sanction for committing
intolerable conduct at this
University, and that is permanent
dismissal. Now as a criminal lawyer
I do not believe much in the system
that does not allow for the concept
of rehabilitation. On the other
hand, I would argue that this
system, while not giving a student a
second chance, does not necessarily
prevent his or her rehabilitation.
Indeed, most penal studies tend to
indicate that character reformation
is better carried out somewhere else
than where the act took place. Is
there, then, any other justification
for dismissal as a single sanction? In
my view there is one, and that is
the very close relation between the
severe sanction and the scope of the
system.

As I understand the present
system, it applies only to
Charlottesville and Albemarle
County or anywhere you represent
yourself as a member of
this University community. It
covers lying, cheating, and stealing.
I want to go on record as saying it
does not cover whether or not you
drink, whether or not you use
drugs, whether or not you attend
classes the requisite number of
hours, or whether or not you have
complied with other social and
administrative regulations of the
University. I would not support it if
it did.

In the 1970's I contend the
scope of the Honor System should
extend only to those acts that a
consensus of you deem to be
intolerable and not social and
administrative regulations. The
inquiry should be into conduct that
is intolerable, not conduct that is
passingly bad or maybe even good.
The comparison between the
operation of the Honor System at
this school and the honor systems
at other schools where thy attempt
to include social and administrative
regulations is, I think, a testimony
to the wisdom of keeping the scope
of the system very narrow indeed. I
would argue that when the system
is narrow in scope, then and only
then is the single sanction justified.

Due Process

Without dealing with the precise
procedures, let me also say that it is
my opinion, and it accords with the
opinion of four other lawyers whom
I respect, that the procedures used
in a so-called honor trial more than
comport with the fundamental
fairness and due process of law that
the United States Constitution
requires.

Finally, I think we ought to
have respect and maximum
freedom for each student and
faculty member to do as he sees fit
within a very broad curriculum.
These educational opportunities,
these living opportunities, the
avoidance of becoming a
multiversity, all of this is going to
begin or has begun already at the
University of Virginia. I think these
developments are all grounded in
the community of mutual trust,
which the Honor System does so
much to foster. It is in such a
community, motivated by such a
spirit of honor, if you will, that I
believe each of us can aid the other
in reaching his maximum personal
fulfillment. Such elevation of the
spirit should be the touchstone for
every future development at this
University.

University of Virginia Library

Honor Examined At The University