University of Virginia Library

Honor System Reflects Awareness Of Student Sentiment

By CHRIS DONART

Addressing the Honor
Committee Convocation last
September, Law Professor
Charles Whitebread stated, "It
is in such a community (of
mutual trust), motivated by
such a spirit of honor, that I
believe each of us can aid the
other in reaching his personal
maximum fulfillment. Such
elevation of the spirit should
be our own thought for every
future development here at this
University."

'Spirit of Honor'

The "spirit of honor" which
Mr. Whitebread describes
provides the foundation for our
present Honor System. This System
was founded in 1842 following the
assassination of a professor during a
riot against faculty surveillance of
examinations.

Originating with an exam
pledge, the Honor System gradually
expanded its scope until, in 1909,
the increasing size of the University
necessitated the establishment of a
formal procedure, the Honor Code.

The Honor System has been
student-administered since its
conception, and its history reflects
the changes in attitudes held by
successive student generations.

Tom Bagby, Chairman of this
year's Honor Committee, has
expressed the need for the Honor
System "to be reevaluated and
accepted by every generation of
students and every entering class."
He believes that the "fact that the
system has weathered questioning
demonstrates its strength."

Although the System has
expanded its scope to encompass
"all the relations and phases or
student life," the Honor Committee
of 1935 warned that "one of the
greatest dangers to which an Honor
System can be exposed is that of being 'overloaded.' "

The most recent controversy
involving "public opinion of the
student generation" occurred last
March. The Honor Committee
reversed a decision regarding a
first-year student who had been
found guilty of stealing drinks from
a vending machine in Echols
Dormitory.

The original decision of the
Honor Committee gave the student
24 hours to leave the University.
The Committee later declared a null
verdict "in this particular case,"
stating that it did not "believe that
this student's behavior" could "fall
within the jurisdiction of the Honor
System as it now exists."

In giving its reprieve, the
Committee declared that "while
such behavior may be construed as
dishonest," the Honor Committee
felt that the current student
generation did not "consider this
act so reprehensible as to warrant
permanent expulsion from the
University." Mr. Bagby noted that
this was a complex and unusual
case and stated that he felt it
demonstrated "the extent to which
the Honor Committee attempts to
protect the rights of the accused."

He cited three other examples of
the ability of the Honor System to
by responsive to the changing needs
of each student generation.

From the original exam pledge
until 1956 lying for liquor was
never included within the scope of
the Code. In an open meeting in
1956, the Chairman of the Honor
Committee stated that lying for
liquor constituted an honor
offense.

Lying for Liquor

A student poll taken in 1969
showed, however, that students did
not consider this act reprehensible.
Lying for liquor was deleted from
the jurisdiction of the Honor
Committee that year.

Because the Committee also felt
that it was unreasonable for the
Honor System to apply to all facets
of a student's life, geographical
boundaries were established in
1969. The Honor System became
applicable only within
Charlottesville and Albemarle
County and in situations in which
an individual was trusted due to his
status as a University student.

According to Mr. Bagby, it was
felt that the geographical limits
would make the System "more
workable and more supportive."

Appeal System

A fourth example of change
within the Honor System occurred
with the expansion of the appeal
system in 1969. Although an
appeal system had existed
previously, it had been limited to
those cases in which new evidence
was found.

The appeal system was
expanded to include the possibility
of appeal on the basis of "good
cause," which was defined as
violation of the rights of the
accused or procedural error which
could have affected the outcome of
the trial.

Currently, the Committee is
working to increase the amount of
contact with students through the
counseling program, fraternities,
and other groups of sizable student
participation.

A continuing orientation
program throughout the year is also
planned. The program will include
open Committee meetings and a
greater amount of reported
information regarding the types of
cases being tried. This information,
the Committee feels, will inform
students of the kind of actions
which are presently being tried as
honor offenses.

A major way of improving
communication is through the polls
which have been held throughout
the history of the Honor System.

The most recent poll was taken
last April during the transition
period between last year's
Committee and the present one.

Recent Poll

A statement regarding the
preliminary results of the poll will
be issued next week. Mr. Bagby
feels the results will "be valuable
now and in future years in dealing
with the scope and penalty aspects
covered by the Honor System."

"The most important thing,"
Mr. Bagby feels, "is that the Honor
System works today, even though
our generation is drastically
different from the age in which it
was conceived."