University of Virginia Library

Honor Committee Retains Scope, Sanction

By ANN BROWN

The Honor Committee voted
unanimously Sunday night to
retain the Honor System's
existing scope and sanction.
The final vote culminated an
intensive examination
beginning in late October of
both the present jurisdiction
and penalty.

College President and
Committee Chairman Gordon
Peerman explained the
procedure, "We initiated our
discussion in a rather general
philosophical way, asking what
kind of honor system suited
the needs of the University in
the 1970's. The unanimous
vote mirrors the feeling of the
Committee that while the
System isn't perfect it does
reflect the needs and
expectations of most
students."

The Committee considered
two scope change proposals
drawn up by a University Law
School graduate and former
Honor Committee Advisor
Allen Barringer and former
Cavalier Daily Editor-In-Chief
Peter Shea. Both discussed
limiting the System's
jurisdiction to actions occurring
on the Grounds, any actions
involving University students,

professors, or staff; and other
actions in which the offender
was identified as a student.

Both Mr. Barringer and Mr.
Shea presented a variation on
this theme in which the
offender would have to have
known that his student status
was recognized in order to be
convicted of an honor offense
occurring off-Grounds.

Among the potential
benefits of such a scope
limitation cited in the
proposals were greater ease in
administration of and
orientation to the System;
removal of certain confusing
"carved out" areas such as the
lying for liquor exception, and
increased acceptance of the
System by some of its student
critics.

Despite the contribution
these limitations might have
made in removing some of the
"gray areas" in scope
highlighted by the now
infamous Coke Case of 1971
and Carmona Case of 1972,
these changes might have
created problems of their own.

As Mr. Peerman remarked
in a memorandum to the
Committee on possible changes
in the System, "the proposals
before us now are part of a
long succession of attempts at
shoring up the Honor System,
but in the process weakening
the logical foundation on
which the System is built.

"I think that it will be
difficult to justify in
orientation why a person may
steal off-Grounds, but not on
the Grounds," he continued.
"This kind of legalism is
foreign to the nature of the
Honor System as we know it,
and will demand an expertise
of Committee members which
should not be expected. In
terms of marketing the Honor
System to successive
generations of students the
lines of argument will have
been so tightly stretched as to
render them incredible "

Graduate Arts and Sciences
President Tom Mason
commented in a similar
memorandum, "At the core of
the Honor System is the
concept that a student is
responsible for his actions.
Under this proposal, much of
that responsibility for
off-Grounds offenses against
non-University people is
shifted to the victim."

He noted that an accuser
would often encounter
difficulty in proving that the
accused student was, in fact,
aware that his student status
had been recognized.

Mr. Peerman also
considered the proposal of
limiting jurisdiction to purely
academic matters, an
alternative discussed by several
committees in recent years.
This particular concept has
often been lauded for its
presumably more realistic
approach to the life-styles of
the University's graduate
population.

Mr. Peerman could see no
justification at present for such
a shrinkage in scope from the
undergraduate viewpoint.
"Frankly among the

undergraduates I doubt one
could find support for what
would be viewed as a draconian
measure," he asserted. "In
terms of the larger purposes of
undergraduate education,
academic work cannot be
completely segregated from the
daily life of the undergraduate
student."

The Committee's
frequently voiced concern for
gauging the attitudes of the
"current student generation" –
one of the Blue Sheet's most
familiar phrases – is perhaps
the principle key to explaining
the vote of complete retention
of the existing code of honor.

In an unprecedented action
last week, Committee members
visited the first year
dormitories to discuss the
scope and sanction questions
with students and to measure
their sentiment on the present
system's effectiveness.

On Tuesday, Feb. 20, I
accompanied Mr. Peerman,
Law School President Linda
Howard, and Education School
President Bob Mende on their
visit to the Echols–Humphreys
Association. Opinions voiced
by two successive groups of
students indicated
overwhelming confidence in
and approval of the System.
These first-year men were most
favorable to the retention of
the existing scope.

Several students expressed
the sentiment that check
cashing privileges were
especially beneficial and
deplored any alteration which
might result in the loss of those
privileges. They agreed that
the student "rip-off rate" was
markedly lower in
Charlottesville than in most
other college towns.

One first-year man noted,
"Where I live, if you're a

Committee Actions

               

Accusations[*]	27
Accusations withdrawn	5
Not guilty by trial	6
Guilty by trial	6
Left the University without trial	6
Trials pending	2
Appeals Not granted	2
Granted, not guilty	1

student and stay in a store
more than three minutes
without buying something,
they'll throw you out of the
store."

Another commented, "If I
got in trouble in
Charlottesville, I'd like to feel I

had the University behind me."
A third student remarked,
"The System isn't perfect, but
knowing it's there kind of
haunts you when you think
about things you might have
done before you came to the
University."

Some participants in the
discussion felt the single
sanction of permanent
dismissal acted as a deterrent.
One student expressed the view
that the single sanction makes
the System work and his
enforcement "makes the
University unique."

Others complained of the
penalty's harshness and some
doubted their ability to face
the prospect of seeing a fellow
student forced to leave the
University following their
accusation. But another
student responded with the
idea that the dismissed student
was really throwing himself out
of the University by his own
actions. Undoubtedly that
first-yearman was unaware of
the rarity of such statements in
recent years.

Conservative Attitude

Several Committee
members were impressed by
the prevailing conservative
attitude toward the System
expressed by first-yearmen in
last week's meeting
Commerce School President
Alan Botsford commented
that he was "less worried about
the downfall of the System
coming from pressures for
change from within than I
would have been before we
went through the dorms."

Mr. Botsford noted an
"intangible pride" among the
first-year class "that at
least the System covers every
student here 24 hours a day."

Engineering School
President Tom Phillips
remarked that aside from some
hesitancy to turn in a close
friend, most first-year students
"want to see the System
tightened up."

"Overwhelming support
and enthusiasm for the
System" was observed by
College Vice-President and
Committee Vice-Chairman
Mark Warner. He estimated 90
to 95 per cent approval of the
System among the students
with whom he talked.

Dean of Students Robert T.
Canevari told The Cavalier
Daily that many students
comment on the Honor System
both negatively and positively.
The Office of Student Affairs
then conveys these sentiments
to the Honor Committee. Mr.
Canevari stated, "During the
first semester those of us in
this office were beginning to
hear some negative comments
concerning the System..."

Following the recent
dormitory visits, Mr. Canevari
met with Mr. Peerman and Mr.
Botsford. He noted that they
were "very enthusiastic about
the outcome of the visits. They
felt it had been very
informative for the Committee
and also helped the students,
themselves, better understand
the System."

Much has been said and
written about the declining
radicalism of American college
students and the Honor
Committee's recent dormitory
visits contribute to mounting
evidence that the attitudes
toward the University's Honor
System are also caught up in
the fabled "swing back of the
pendulum."

Mr. Phillips asserted that the
System "reached an all time
low" in effectiveness in 1970.
"At that time," he continued,
"it was a very popular thing to
do to degrade everything, and
that included the Honor
System. Things were in such
bad straits that we even had a
substantial number of
counselors not supporting the
System."

He felt that the University
has "come out of this lack of a
responsible attitude."

Mr. Warner mentioned the
cyclical nature of social trends
and proposed that the end of
the Vietnam War and the
tightening American economy
have affected the attitudes of
University students toward the
Honor System. Without the
war to occupy their thoughts
and emotions many students
have become "more
goal-oriented and hence more
conservative."

The University has always
had its share of Cassandras
with respect to the System's
effectiveness; but the voices of
optimism have been much
more audible in recent months.
Mr. Warner theorized that,
excepting the problem of
business "rip-offs," the System
is "probably working as well as
it ever has."

Several Committee
members pointed to the large
number of students who have
left the University without a
trial–six since last April–as
indicative of renewed
acceptance of the System.
"Leaving under a cloud," a
fairly frequent occurrence until
about five years ago, had
become a very rare
phenomenon. Mr. Peerman also
noted that most of this year's
accusations have been made by
upperclass students.

Mr. Botsford stated that he
viewed last spring's referendum
on the sanction issue as a
turning point. He labeled it
the "beginning of a year of
more confidence in the System
than we've seen recently." The
prospect of a vote on such an
important aspect of the System
led more students to give the
entire package more thought.

College Dean Irby B.
Cauthen Jr. expressed
optimism for the System's
continued contribution to
University academic life. "So
far as I can tell the Honor
System is working most
satisfactorily, despite some
evident strains from time to
time on the dedicated students
who make up the Honor
Committee. As a professor, I
expect my students to abide by
its provisions, and I believe
they do. As a dean, I take the
word of our students as truth."

Assoc. Economics Prof.
Kenneth G. Elzinga, who
delivered this year's address to
new faculty, made the
following comments upon the
state of the System: "Given
the frailties of the human
vessel, I think the Honor
System works astonishingly
well. Of course, it is also a
fragile institution because it
serves a transient group of
individuals. Each generation of
students has to decide for itself
whether the Honor System is
worthwhile.

Increased Population

"I believe, for the most
part, students continue to find
the Honor System well worth
preserving," he continued.
"Actually, with the increased
student population, the
importance of the Honor
System looms much   larger
since it is one of the bonds of
civility which holds off the
depersonalization found at so
many other state universities."

Mr. Elzinga's comments,
however, touch upon the
Honor System's principle
threat–expansion. That word
with its myriad implications
has become the chief bugbear
for nearly everyone connected
with the University. But no
stronger argument for carefully
planned growth can be made
than the contention that the
disappearance of community
automatically implies the death
of the Honor System.

Outlining the task of future
Honor Committees, Mr.
Peerman noted that the bulk of
time and effort in the past two
years had been spent in
detailed study of scope and
sanction. "Now the
Committees are going to have
to turn their attention to the
more practical concerns of
communicating the Honor
System both as something of
value to the individual and to
the University community."

Increasing numbers of
students not provided with
adequate facilities are the crux
of the problem.

"You can't fabricate
community," Mr. Peerman
stressed, "If the University is
sincere in its desire that the
Honor System remain then it
will have to face the fact that
some sacrifices must be made.

"We're simply going to have
to provide residential facilities
for the students. It is
impossible to maintain any
kind of community for
students who feel no more
profound relationship to the
University than that of simply
attending classes."

Broadened Communication

Broadened communications
might be looked upon as a
theme in the committee's
efforts this year. A thorough
revision of the Blue Sheet was

completed last May,
culminating a two year study
by the committees chaired by
David Morris and Tom Bagby.

Contemporaneity Stressed

With coherence and
contemporaneity as their
objective, these groups
basically rethought both the
Blue Sheet's explanatory and
procedural sections "with the
view that it would be read by
those who had no prior contact

with the Honor System." (The
Cavalier Daily, May 10, 1972).

The committee is currently
completing a mailing of the
new Blue Sheet to all
upperclass students.

A poll of Charlottesville
merchants initiated this fall,
sought to determine the extent
of their reliance upon the
University's Honor System.
"The poll showed that of the
62 businessmen questioned, 89
per cent were aware of the
Honor System and 83 per cent
felt that their check cashing
policy reflected their faith in
it." (The Cavalier Daily,
December 6, 1972).

Student opinion is, of
course, not only the most
important but the most
difficult to gauge. Mr. Shea's
memorandum on scope change
included the recommendation
that a limited survey of student
opinion be taken each year as
part of the registration process.

Undoubtedly, scientifically
designed polls similar to that
administered in 1971 will be
used by future committees as
the most accurate measuring
stick. But there are dangers in
overusing surveys. Assoc. Law
Prof. Charles H. Whitebread
commented, "Any system
suffers as much from
over-examination as from
under-examination." He
warned against "trying to make
the system too reactive."

Mr. Botsford stressed that
the Honor System should not
be "as volatile as student
opinion."

It is incumbent upon the
System and the committees
which administer it from year
to year to remain flexible,
sensitive to trends in student
attitudes yet not mercurial.