University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Senator Kennedy Dishonorable?

By R. SCOTT GREATHEAD

Ed.)

The single greatest
misconception by a student in
last April's poll: "Where there
is no Honor System or a
watered down Honor System,"
he said, "there is cheating,
rampant cheating."

As one who desires an
effective Honor System at
Virginia and has participated
as legal counsel in Honor trials,
I feel that the fears of the
student quoted are both
unrealistic and exaggerated.

The present single sanction
system reduces the
effectiveness of the Honor
Code because of the widely
held belief that the only
existing sanction, permanent
expulsion, is too harsh for
many offenses. A chart listing
Honor Committee actions in
the March 13th The Cavalier
Daily showed that between
1967 and 1972 the number of
accusations has declined from
25 to per year.

Although the rate of decline
is perhaps not significant, it is
important to note that this
period has seen the most rapid
expansion of the student body
in the University's history,
from 8,500 students in
1967-68, to about 12,000 in
1971-72.

Recent student reactions to
convictions for lying and
stealing are even more
illustrative of the wide
consensus that permanent
expulsion is too harsh a
penalty for many violations of
the Honor System. In the fall
of 1968 student reaction to the
permanent expulsion of a first
year student who lied about his
age to buy beer resulted in that
particular offense being
excepted from the Honor
Code.

Just last year the Honor
Committee's verdict of guilty
in the case of an
undergraduate who had taken
soft drinks from a broken
vending machine produced
such a violent student reaction
that the Committee, in an
unprecedented action, was
compelled to reverse its
decision. I feel that these acts
ultimately went unpunished
because there was no
punishment in existence which
was commensurate with their
reprehensibility.

Expulsion was an excessive
penalty and the Honor
Committee reversed itself only
because student outrage was so
vehement. The Honor
Committee has repeatedly
stated that it expels students
only when their conduct
approaches the highest degree
of reprehensibility. I cannot
accept these statements at face
value in light of the Committee's
decision to expel students for
the two offenses mentioned
above.

The University
administration itself has
demonstrated a certain
amount of ambivalence toward
the commission of honor
offenses. The University has
always proudly noted that
Senator Edward M. Kennedy is
an alumnus of the class of
1959 of the Law School. Yet
Senator Kennedy as an
undergraduate at Harvard, was
temporarily suspended from
that university for cheating on
a Spanish examination, an
offense which would have
resulted in his permanent
expulsion from the University
of Virginia.

If the University cannot
tolerate individuals who are
found to have cheated, then I
question the propriety with
which it acted when it
admitted Senator Kennedy to
the Law School. Further, I
question why those who
cannot "tolerate" honor
offenders can "tolerate"
Edward Kennedy.

Although the Honor
Committee sought to assure us
that "in all cases that the
present Committee is aware of,
the dismissed student has been
accepted to another university
of his choice," the possibility
of a student's higher education
having ended with his
expulsion is too great to be
ignored. It is doubtful that any
other state college or
university in Virginia would
accept a student expelled for
an honor violation from the
University of Virginia.

Expulsion from the
University could thus
effectively preclude a state
student's admission to any
state university where he could
receive reduced in-state tuition
rates. In the case of a Virginia
student from a marginal
economic background who
could not afford to attend a
private college or go out of
state, expulsion from the
University will end his
education.

It is also extremely
important to remember that
any student expelled because
of a violation of the Honor
Code leaves this university
with a permanent mark on his
record a brief notation of the
fact that he was expelled from
Virginia for violating the
Honor Code. No explanation
of the offense appears on the
transcript.. Thus, the
convicted student must
explain his mistake not only to
other academic institutions,
but to employers, friends, and
associates for the rest of his
life.

Perhaps a deliberate act of
plagiarism on a major
examination deserves such a
harsh penalty, but there are
many lesser honor offenses
which certainly do not.
Students need merely
conclude that there are some
dishonorable acts which
should be punished—but which
do not warrant the harsh
sanction of permanent
expulsion to support, in good
conscience, an alternative
penalty system.

The recent 25 page
proposal for a dual sanction
system proposed by three law
students and rejected last week
by the Honor Committee (by a
vote of 7 to 4), demonstrates
that an alternative sanction
system is administratively
feasible. It was written by
students who want an Honor
System, but also want that
system to be effective and just.
I encourage all interested
students to read it.

A change from the single
sanction system can only
enhance the effectiveness of
the Honor System. With a
realistic sanction more
students would be willing to
report violations which now
are felt to be too minor to
merit the expulsion sanction.
The possibility that a student's
education will be terminated
by the commission of a minor
honor offense will be obviated.

Only if the Honor System
enjoys the respect and
confidence of the students
who must administer as well as
comply with it, will honor be a
meaningful term at the
University of Virginia.