University of Virginia Library

Tom Bagby

I feel that I am different from other
candidates for President of the College due to
my contact with many diverse sections of the
student body. I feel that through these
contacts, I have been able to accurately
evaluate student opinion concerning our Honor
System. I feel that my activities at the
University and my sincere interest in the
well-being of the Honor System, in addition to
my intention to devote full time and attention

to my position, make me different from the
other candidates.

I do not see myself as either a traditionalist
or a reformer, but rather one who seeks a
rational, realistic approach to our Honor
System. I feel that I can be to some extent both
traditionalist and reformer depending on the
situation and the factors involved. I do not fear
change, but cannot condone change without
reason.

2) While I personally feel, on mainly
theoretical grounds, that the system maintains a
sounder basis with the single sanction of
expulsion, I also feel very strongly that the
system can only function with a consensus
support from the student generation involved.
Therefore, if it can be determined that a large
number of students are not supporting the
system due to the penalty of expulsion, then
the single sanction of expulsion should be
reviewed.

I feel that any limitation of the scope of the
honor system at this time would have to be a
radical one. I fear a codification of the system
if various areas are carved out and excluded
from within the jurisdiction of the present
system. I feel that if a change in the system has
to be made in concurrence with student
opinion, that this change should come in the
area of the penalty rather than in further
limitation of the scope.

3) I believe that the Vending Machine case
was an extraordinary one due to the amount of
pretrial publicity and the actual numbers
allegedly involved in the actions. The question
in the end was not whether an offense had
occurred, but whether that offense was
reprehensible enough to warrant expulsion
from the University. Ideally, the Committee
would be able to poll student opinion in every
case to determine whether our student
generation believed an offense so reprehensible
as to warrant expulsion. Since this is not
possible, the Honor Committee can only feel
for student opinion and then try to interpret
this opinion. I think that the Honor Committee
acted in good faith, believing that a consensus
of student opinion did not feel the act
reprehensible enough to warrant dismissal. I
think that this case points to certain areas of
our system that may be weak and I feel that the
Committee must follow up their statement with
some action of clarification or reform.