University of Virginia Library

Changing Student Attitudes
Mold System's Scope, Course

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Photo By Howard Weinberg

Honor Secretary David Bowman And Chairman David Morris Discuss Procedures Of System

System Has Undergone Changes In Recent Years To Keep Pace With Changing Times And Attitudes

Student unrest is not a totally
new phenomena, at least
not at the University. Well over
a hundred years ago students,
angered by their forced Spartan
existence, rioted on the
lawn.

Tension between the faculty
and students had reached a
critical boiling point over the
strict disciplinary measures
that had been imposed upon
these early students. Before the
crisis subsided one professor
was murdered on the lawn by a
masked student assailant and
another publicly horsewhipped
after a minor dispute
with a student.

Professor Henry St. George
Tucker realized that matters
would only continue to degenerate
with stricter faculty in
1842 which shifted responsibility
from the faculty to the
students, at least in the classroom.

System Implemented

The distrust created by
strict faculty surveillance of
examinations vanished with the
implementation of the Tucker
resolution which simply stated that
students would certify on their
honor that they had received no
assistance during examinations.

The Honor System had become
a pure student operation by 1851.
Although there was no formal procedure
employed during the nineteenth
century, the students did
manage through a number of committees
to dismiss students who had
violated the trust. Even at that time
there was no appeal after a conviction
to any group other than students,
"save to the throne of the
Deity."

As a result of the University's
growing enrollment, complexity,
and diversity, a formal procedure
was instituted in 1909. Since that
time the scope and the procedural
aspects of the Honor System have
varied with each student generation,
but the cornerstone of mutual
trust has always remained intact.

For example, lying for liquor
was not necessarily regarded as a
breach of the Honor System until
1956. After interviews with numbers
of students and authorities on
the Honor System and a poll on
student opinion the Honor Committee
decided in 1969 to once
again delete lying for liquor as a
violation. The scope and procedural
provisions of the System are always
dictated by the students through
their elected representatives on the
Committee.

As the present Chairman of the
Committee, David Morris has written,
"It is said that the Honor
System generates a spirit of mutual
trust because the System has endured
through a process of dynamic
response to changing student
norms-an ability to define and redefine
a concept of community
honor according to evolving student
standards."

Serves As Model

As the result of the success of
the Honor System at the University
for 128 years, it has served as a
model for many other institutions
around the country who have wished
to fashion similar system. Mr.
Morris noted that he has received
many requests for information on
the System from all kinds of sources
who have noted the wide notoriety
of the System office last
March.

In an article on cheating in
1966. TIME magazine referred to
"the most famous" Honor System
as an example of a exception to the
cheating trends of the times. It
quoted then Dean of the Law
School and now member of the
World Court Judge Hardy Dillard as
saying that a code of honor "demands
not that an individual be
good, but that he be unambiguously
strong-a quality generally
known as character. The man who
lies, cheats, or steals is fundamentally
weak."

Student Support

Mr. Morris believes that the reasons
for the success of the System
can be found in its responsiveness
to the changing mores of each
student generation and to the adherence
to the spirit of mutual trust
by students at the University since
1842.

He also noted that the System
has enjoyed such widespread support
because it is completely student
administered with no appeal
to anyone other than students. The
System has been able to survive
stormy political debates and movements
since it is not involved in
politics, according to the Chairman.
"Students on both the left and the
right support the System, because
they are able to see its direct
benefits for all."

Although the System has had
the overwhelming support of students
ever since its incorporation, it
still faces many challenges which it
must meet if it is to endure. According
to Mr. Morris, with a strong
tradition of success and the hard
work of this year's Committee he
hopes the System will remain the
hallmark of the University.