University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Professor Defends Education Students With 'Factual Reply'

I would like to correct the
inaccurate report emanating
from the State Council of
Higher Education and
publicized in the March 3 issue
of the Richmond News Leader
and the March 6 issue of The
Cavalier Daily which states that
the Social Foundations of
Education program at the
University of Virginia is
"unproductive."

I will not bother with an
analysis of the productivity
yardstick which equates
quantity with quality, which
does not question
"over-productivity" which
encourages mass production
and thoughtless expansion,
which ignores the role
programs such as ours play in
terms of service to
undergraduate and graduate
non-majors and which is
oblivious to the unique role
graduates in this area assume in
Schools of Education.

But in defense of the seven
graduate students who have
already received degrees in this
field since its inception in 1969
and out of concern for the
twelve others now in various
stages of their programs, a
factual reply to factual
inaccuracies must be presented.

First of all, the assertion
that this program has produced
no graduates in the last three
years is flatly false. The Social
Foundations of Education area
initiated graduate degree
programs at the Masters and
doctoral level in the spring of
1969.

In August of 1970 we
awarded our first M.Ed. degree;
three were awarded in June of
1971, another in August of
1971 and two more in January,
1972. Presently, seven more
students expect to receive
M.Ed. or M.A. degrees in the
field by June or August of this
year. Unproductive?

We do plead guilty to not
having "produced" any
doctoral students as yet.
Rightly or wrongly, we have
stressed the merits of a small,
doctoral program, not only in
light of a demanding job
market but also out of a
commitment to the principle
of close student-faculty
contact and, hopefully,
superior educational
experiences.

To have graduated even one
doctoral student from a
program operative less than
three years would seem to me
more highly questionable than
the sin we are accused of
committing. Be that as it may,
let it be noted that five
doctoral students are currently
enrolled, with two others
accepted thus far for entry into
the program in September.

Of the five now enrolled,
two have completed
comprehensive examinations
and are engaged in dissertation
research; two others will take
their comps this month. By
June of 1973 then, four
candidates should receive their
Ph.D. degrees and by the
following year another should
complete requirements for the
Ed.D. degree.

The inaccuracy of the
statistics from which the State
Council has drawn its
unwarranted assumptions are
in the process of being
corrected by Dean Frederick
Cyphert and other University
officials. I trust that the facts
presented here testify to the
University community not
only the existence of this
relatively new program but also
to its health.

The steadily increasing
number of applications to this
program, our growing national
posture, and the commitment
to the program of our past and
present students lead us to
believe that we are alive and
well in spite of the recent
announcement of our demise.

Obligated

As the only officer from the
Law School that has been
present during Honor
Committee Meetings for the
entire year and as one of the
four law students that
submitted the law school
proposal for graduated
penalties to the Honor
Committee, I feel obligated as
an elected representative of the
law school to reflect my
opinions concerning the
upcoming referendum at this
time.

My initial reasons for
submitting the graduated
penalties proposal were: 1) my
"gut reaction" to the single
sanction is compassion on the
person found guilty of an
honor violation, 2) the Honor
Committee needed a departure
point to start from in
evaluating the poll and 3)
initially, I thought the poll
appeared to show student
support for the graduated
penalties system.

After extensive Honor
Committee discussion and
analysis of the poll, I found
that the poll at best was
inconclusive on the question of
penalty-thus the reason for
the referendum. However,
during these discussions, I
myself changed, by viewpoints
from support of a graduated
penalties system to a single
sanction system for the
following reasons:

1) The Honor System
should be concerned with only
the base level of dishonesty
(that which warrants the single
sanction), and not with trivial
matters (that which a
graduated penalties system
would encompass). A
graduated penalties system
would only widen the scope of
the system-a result which the
poll indicates students do not
want.

2) By having a single
sanction, the Honor System is
continually kept in the minds
of the students. The one aspect
of the System that every
student grabs onto during
orientation is the single
sanction. Thus, every student
convicted of an honor violation
has advance notice of the
sanction to which he subjects
himself.

3) If there were a system of
graduated penalties, this does
not mean that people will be
more inclined to accuse people
for honor violations since the
accuser would not know in
advance which penalty will be
imposed by the Honor
Committee upon a verdict of
guilty.

4) The simpler an honor
system is the better it is
understood and operates in a
university community.
Procedurally, a graduated
system of penalties would add
another burden to the trial
proceeding.

5) A person is found guilty of
an honor violation by the
Honor Committee only upon
being found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. With a
graduated penalties system,
"compromise" verdicts would
be an ever-present danger.

6) If the argument for
graduated penalties is
rehabilitation, I question
whether the Honor Committee
has the facilities and the
professional "know-how" to be
a rehabilitative agency.

7) Other University honor
systems that have gone from
the single sanction to
graduated penalties have
eventually collapsed.

The foregoing are my
reasons for deciding after
extensive Honor Committee
meetings and thought, that a
single sanction system, not a
graduated penalties system, is
the only feasible way for our
Honor System to exist.

Lastly, when you vote in
the referendum, please try not
to be influenced and caught up
in the "cavalier-savior"
approach of one member of
the Honor Committee.
Remember this is your decision
upon the single sanction and
should be made only after
careful reflection about both
sides of the issue.

Word Of Praise

In view of the criticism
which has been directed at the
Athletic Department because
of its basketball ticket policies,
we feel a word of praise is in
order where merited.

The policy of the Athletic
Department regarding
distribution of ACC
Tournament tickets is
commendable. The
Tournament is one of the great
events in college basketball.

The fact that this University
allots so large a proportion of
its tickets to students is a
credit to the people in charge.
That policy strongly contrasts
that of other ACC schools,
which seem to limit tickets to
alumni and boosters.

The enthusiastic support of
the students who attended
undoubtedly contributed to
the Cavaliers' fine
performance. And it was good
that students were able to
witness further proof that their
team belongs among the elite
in college basketball.

It is our sincere hope that
the Athletic Department
continues their policy in the
future and disregards that of
the other ACC schools.

Ill-Fated Attempt

The Honor System is an
ill-fated attempt to control
people and is probably better if
let to atrophy in the
vacuousness of the assumptions
and suppositions it was
predicated upon. The Honor
System is not essential and is
even questionable to the
viability of the University and
her students. Why?

The first reason is purely
sociological; the continually
growing population of the
University cannot maintain
such a cloistered "primitive"
system. Secondly, the rationale
that a student should be
subjected to two sets of social
laws is inane. It is an affront to
one's senses and to the stated
purpose of the University. If,
as the University Record for
1972-3 states, its purpose is to
stimulate and sustain "a spirit
of free inquiry directed to an
understanding of the nature of
the universe and man's role in
it," for what possible reason
should a student subscribe to
an artificial set of laws? We are
either preparing for our role in
society, or we are subject to in
loco parentis vicariously
through the Honor System.

No doubt some students
enjoy the pseudo-psychological
bliss in thinking that the Honor
System is of real value. It never
occurs to these students that
the value is not "out there."
These are the same students
who find succor in
administrative paternalism and
the "structured freedom" of
most classrooms.

If the University is to grow,
and it must, the Honor System
is going to become more of an
obtrusion to the development
of her students.

Congratulations

I want to congratulate the
author of the fine article
appearing in the March 13
edition of The Cavalier Daily
discussing the detrimental
effects that graduate students
will incur upon the Honor
Code, particularly those
mercenary students in science
and technology who are "...not
in learning for the sake of
learning.", But "...are more
concerned with monetary
advantages..." I give a D to the
junior high school student who
wrote it. It is almost
demeaning to offer guidance to
this writer-aspirant. If this
individual (grad?) is an
in-house commentator, I
suggest that he reappraise his
presence in science. If he is an
out-house analyst, then he is
seated in his proper theatre.

Suggestion

We have a suggestion for
the beset clergy of University
related congregations as to how
they can explain to "several
people', why they have
"refused to sponsor" and
"declined to endorse" this
weekend's Leighton
Ford-Tom Skinner program.
The simplest explanation is
that they have not been asked.

That the ecclesiastical
Establishment of the
University should have
reservations about the
"methods and style of such an
operation" highlights the
relevance of the program's
topic: Jesus Christ vs.
Christianity. Indeed the tone
and innuendo of their letter is
a lucky coincidence because it
is a manifestation of the
controversy which Ford and
Skinner plan to discuss.
Consequently we hope all three
sessions will be widely
attended by the University
community.

Group Up

One would think that by
the time an individual is old
enough to attend the
University of Virginia, he
would have grown up enough
to maintain some semblance of
civilized manners. If you will
drop by the cafeteria during
any meal, you will find that
this is not the case. You will be
started by the barbaric,
childish and perhaps savage
acts that take place.

You will find such
intentional acts as dumping
mashed potatoes on the chairs,
turning glasses of coke over so
that they spill when picked up,
butter pats thrown on the
ceiling, sugar, food and food
and food fights in which most
of the food ends up on the
floor.

Many of these are "jokes"
deliberately intended for the