 | Board of Visitors minutes June 4, 1965 |  |
REPORT ON THE HONOR SYSTEM
At the request of several members of the Board, the President asked four persons to appear
before the Board and report on the current situation with respect to the Honor System. These
individuals were Mr. B. F. D. Runk, Dean of the University, Mr. Benjamin C. Ackerly, Chairman of
the Honor Committee, 1964-1965, Mr. George H. Morison, Chairman of the Honor Committee, 1965-1966,
and Dean Hardy C. Dillard of the School of Law and a member of the Special Advisory Committee
appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force to investigate the cheating scandal at the Air Force
Academy.
Dean Runk's remarks were as follows:
May I point out that I have been associated with the Honor System of the University
for a period of nearly forty years. In addition, I have been privileged to work closely
with the administration of the Honor System, both as a student and more lately as a
member of the faculty and administration. Over this span I have seen changes occur in
the System and its application to our way of life. I well remember pledged dances held
during my student days, the application of the pledge to athletic training, and the
drinking pledge applied by the revered Dean Jimmy Page to those students who, at times,
were inclined to imbibe too often and too freely. I also remember when the writing of
a bad check was considered a violation of the Honor System unless a valid reason was
given in a hurry.
Over the years changes have taken place and I believe will continue to take place
as long as the System remains a part of our changing society. These changes came
about through a change in the mores and thinking of our student body - the group in
whose hands the Honor System rests.
Today the System as applied to the classroom works well and effectively. The
number of violations is not great, but some do occur, and those students charged
with a violation for the most part are found guilty and are dismissed.
There are certain areas which should be watched with concern and to which the
Honor Committee should be particularly alert.
Too often today the question of intent is raised in questions of honor violations.
This year a student entered Newcomb Hall after the building was
secured for the night, and pried loose a speaker in one of the Hi-Fi music
listening rooms. He took this back to his room in the dormitory and within
the next day or so took it to Northern Virginia where he left it at the home
of a friend. When charged with stealing, his plea was that he did not intend
to keep the speaker and thus he was not guilty of a violation of the Honor
System. He was found not guilty by the Honor Committee.
I do not consider a statement to the effect that "I did not intend to
cheat" should free a man from the Honor System.
One of the procedural features of the present system is that both sides
may be represented by counsel from the student body. Too often the defense
counsel, normally a third-year Law student assigned to the case by the Honor
Committee, will use the honor trial as a time and place to demonstrate his
legalistic training.
The chairman of the Committee must be on guard constantly to assure
that only the facts of the case are presented.
During the past few years there have been rumblings that the Honor System
should be codified so that what a student can do and cannot do under the System
is specifically spelled out. It does not appear to me that the spirit implied
in the Honor System can or should be codified.
One particular aspect of present day attitudes that bothers me is the
feeling on the part of some students that it is permissable to not be open and
above board with those in the lower administrative brackets. It appears to be
something of a game to get away with lying as a means for beating the University
administration in the enforcement of motor vehicle rules and regulations.
The use of decals to which they are not entitled, or the open falsification of
registration decals is not considered by all students to be dishonest. Others
do not even feel it is wrong to sign a card stating that they do not own or
operate a motor vehicle at the very time they have a motor vehicle here to
which they, as students, are not entitled. It appears that a dishonest mental
reservation is being made by some in the perennial game of beating the administration.
I have recently been asked by the Student Government to refrain from
requesting students to indicate by a monthly letter their compliance with a
state of probation. The reason given is that this will place a strain on the
Honor System. They also express the feeling that the Honor System is being
used to enforce an administrative matter. Such illogical reasoning could lead
to a condition where honorable conduct would be enforced only when it did not
adversely affect a student's interests.
The Bad Check Committee is overworked and has a thankless job because of
checks returned marked "Insufficient Funds." True, the banks do make many
errors but the number of bad checks grows each year and the writing of such
is no longer considered by many to be wrong.
The attitudes I have expressed are symptomatic of the present times.
The concept of honor is no longer part of the life of many people. It is
not always found in the home and often not in government. I fear that some
of our students have come from backgrounds where the appreciation and understanding
of honor is lacking. It is difficult for them to immediately understand
all that is demanded here. Applications for admission to all schools
now require the applicant to state that he is willing to subscribe to and
support the Honor System. New faculty members should also be willing to live
with and cooperate with our way of life.
We must all work together to keep and make more perfect the noble
tradition which has been so much a part of the University since 1842.
Mr. Ackerly's remarks were as follows:
The Honor Committee has made extensive efforts over the past year to
improve its effectiveness and to protect itself and the University from
possible charges that might develop out of such a situation.
With the help of some of our students in the law school the Honor
Committee has sought the advice of experts in the respective fields of science
criminology. Twice this year we have sent papers to Washington, D.C. to be
examined by one of the foremost documents experts in the country. These
papers have been checked for handwriting similarities, erasures and the time
interval in which the work was done. On other occasions we have called in the
services of scientific experts in the University community itself to aid us,
and we work closely with the Department of Security.
These pretrial measures sometimes eliminate the necessity for any Honor
Trial because they substantiate any doubt which the parties may have had.
This expert advice is an invaluable service to the Honor Committee, and aids
us a great deal in reaching a just verdict.
On the other side of the spectrum we initiated some new procedures this
year to protect the Honor Committee. When a student notifies the Honor
Committee that he has been charged with an honor violation and requests a
trial he is informed that he has to notify his parents of the fact. If he
doesn't notify his parents then the Chairman of the Honor Committee does. If
a student is in his first year his dormitory counselor is notified of the
situation and advised to keep an eye out for the boy.
Arrangements have been made this year with Student Health and the University
Hospital to take care of a student prior to or after a trial if we or a doctor
feels that he is mentally upset and cannot control himself. (If a student was
mentally unsound at the time of the offense then we request that he be dismissed
from the University for medical reasons.)
Immediately following a trial the accused notifies his parents of the outcome
of the trial. A first year student's dormitory counselor is also notified of the
results and advised to keep an eye out for the student.
These measures are designed so that the parents of the boy will be aware of
the situation so in the event of an unforseen accident the parents cannot claim
that they did not know what was going on. Our measures are by no means fool proof,
but we have had no unfortunate accidents that would reflect discredit on the Honor
System or the University of Virginia.
This year we have been amazingly successful in obtaining admission to other
colleges for those students who are dismissed from the University. We are trying
to eradicate the air and feeling that exists here that an Honor Violation is the
end of the world. This is a popular notion among students which certainly is not
true and I believe to be unhealthy for the Honor System.
For those of you who have followed the situation at the Air Force Academy I
may note that the University is certainly not above such a development. More than
a month before the official report was released Dean Dillard of the Law School
spoke to a closed session of the Honor Committee advising them of what had been
discovered in their survey of the Air Force Academy. I can assure you that his
advice fell on anxious ears and will be carried out to the letter.
As you well know the Honor Committee never publishes any of the names of the
people involved in a possible honor infraction. If the case is dismissed all
records and evidence are destroyed. If a student is found guilty a transcript of
the trial is kept in file by the Honor Committee and the registrar is notified of
the dismissal so that he may officially contact the parents. A notice appears in
the "Cavalier Daily" stating the offense, but no names ever appear.
After a year of close work with the Honor System several pertinent problems
have come to mind which will have to be dealt with shortly. The expanding
enrollment, especially in the graduate schools, is making it doubly difficult for
the Honor Committee to orientate everyone. Effective orientation is still maintained
with first year students through the dormitory complex, but no such control
is available for graduate students. Second, there is a prevailing mood created
by the generation in which we live to try to shirk authority and get away with what
you can. It is no secret that personal honor is no longer regarded by all the way
it was twenty or thirty years ago. Of course this is a creeping problem and
probably the most dangerous. The Honor System has successfully followed the train
of time by denying any codification and I sincerely believe that this is the only
way it can continue to exist. The students are the ones who interpret the Honor
System and although it may not be as astringent as it has been it certainly reflects
student opinion and this is the way it should be.
Mr. Morison's remarks were as follows:
The maintenance of the System today continues to be a task of redefinition
and alertness to potential dangers and weaknesses. As has been the case since
its inception in 1842, the System remains entirely in the hands of the students
and it is the student's individual responsibility to determine what is or is not
an honor offense. It is the Honor Committee's responsibility to uphold the spirit
of the Honor System in light of student opinion.
"Spirit" and "redefinition" are key words in the understanding of the Honor
System. Whereas the tendency at institutions at large has been towards codification,
we specifically avoid any such tendency here. Flexability and an ability to adopt
[sic] to the times have been important factors in the continued success of the Honor
System. The history of the System has been one of changes, matters that were not
considered honor offenses ten years ago are considered honor offenses today, and
matters that were considered honor offenses ten years ago are not considered such
today. It is the Honor Committee's task to continually redefine what is a "lie,"
a "cheat," or a "theft" in areas where the offense is not flagrant and the interpretation
is vague.
In examining past case histories, observing the attitudes of the students
through the eyes of people who have been here a great deal longer than myself,
discussing the status of the Honor System today with past Chairmans [sic] and
evaluating what one might call "the atmosphere of honor" that prevails on the
Grounds, I think I can safely say that the Honor System is as strong today as
it has ever been. It has the imperative and necessary respect of the students
and almost complete co-operation of the faculty and the University community.
There are, however, continual dangers and concern. Over extension of the
Honor System constitutes an area of danger. For example, earlier this year the
Committee had to request that a Language Laboratory pledge be changed that had
asked students to pledge that they "had listened to a tape recorder effectively."
The student body did not feel that one should be guilty of an honor offense
because he did not listen to a tape recorder "effectively," a word that is vague
in itself. Another example is a gym instructor who told his students "to take
ten laps or it was an honor offense." Students did not feel that this was
a proper application of the Honor System. When students have such feelings concerning
any aspect of the System, it leads to a lessening of respect that weakens
the System as a whole.
The University's expansion to 10,000 students represents another potential
danger. The problems involved in orientating a student body of that size, in
maintaining personal contact, and in keeping a "personal" atmosphere that is so
vital in establishing a feeling for the System, are paramount ones. The present
Committee is investigating what steps must be made during this period of growth
its findings and suggestions to the incoming Committee of 1966-67.
A matter of concern to the Honor Committee is the identification card problem
in the Athletic Department. This involves the fact that if a student forgets his
identification card when going to Scott Stadium, Memorial Gymnasium, or any other
athletic contest which requires paid admission, he cannot gain entrance by word of
another student who does have his identification card and is willing to pledge that
this boy is a student. The refusal of the Athletic Department to take another boy's
word in these cases appears to refute the very principle that at the University a
gentleman's word is the truth.
Potential dangers and weaknesses, however, will always exist and the before
mentioned are merely some examples of ones that are present today. The Honor
System as a whole, however, is strong and there are no indications that this
strength will decline in the future. This year numerable steps, which Mr. Ackerly
will report subsequently, have been taken to further safeguard the system and its
consequences within the University.
The burden of maintaining the Honor System falls on the students, and they
shoulder that burden gladly. As long as the System remains in the hands of the
students, as long as the maintenance of the System is the responsibility of each
individual student and no one else, and as long as the System receives the support
of the faculty, the administration, and the University community, there need be no
fear for the future of the Honor System at the University.
Dean Dillard's remarks in summary were as follows:
Dean Dillard had been invited to appear before the Board to highlight in
10 minutes those aspects of the probe which might have a potential bearing on the
future of the honor system and its operation at the University of Virginia.
Dean Dillard divided his talk into three parts. He first rapidly described
the composition of the Special Advisory Committee and its method of operation,
second, he mentioned several factors which had a tangential bearing on the honor
system and, finally, he highlighted three aspects which bore more directly on the
problem at Virginia with particular stress on the strains on the honor system
resulting from recruiting athletes and treating them as a special subgroup.
I
The Committee was appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force following a
nationally publicized cheating episode at the Air Force Academy, in which 105
cadets out of a student body of 2700 had resigned as a result of exposure by the
Office of Special Investigation of the Air Force. The Chairman of the Committee
was General Thomas D. White, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Other
members, apart from Dean Dillard, were Lieutenant General Nazzaro, Deputy Commander
of the Strategic Air Command, Robert Stearns, former President of the
University of Colorado, and Charles Thornton, President of Litton Industries.
The mission of the Committee was not limited to the cheating episode, although
stimulated by it. The Secretary, Eugene Zuckert, made it known that he did not
want any kind of whitewash and that the Committee report would be made public.
This was done. The report ran to 94 pages of text and an additional 20 pages of appendices.
The Committee interviewed, as a group, 119 witnesses and an additional
100 were interviewed by individual members of the Committee. The Committee met
for 21 working days in Washington, Colorado Springs and California. It believes
its report has a significance transcending the Air Force Academy.
Apart from interview, the Committee studied many documents (he estimated they
cumulatively added up to about three feet). These included documents on the
working of the system at Virginia and speeches made at Virginia. Indeed, some of
the language of both his own and Professor Gooch's speeches before Virginia
students are reflected in the report.
II
Among the tangential factors, Dean Dillard noted that the Air Force Academy
suffered by virtue of its newness and lack of stability. The command changed
frequently and even more significant oscillated frequently between emphasis on
"Socrates" to emphasis on "Sergeant York." The problem of how to weld the two
images was not successfully accomplished. This had a tangential effect because
when you have uncertainty as to one phase of a total system, it tends to carry over
into other phases. The "honor system" is not an isolated part of an institutional
environment, and when the environmental values of one part are clouded by doubt
the doubts tend to spill over into other parts.
Another tangential factor has to do with the fact that the Academy had no
"heroes." Heroes are important because they tend to capture the imagination
by symbolizing the finer aspirations of an institution or a profession. (Consider
Marshall, Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo and others in law.) Now in the absence of
heroes, living or dead, there is a tendency to substitute purely quantitative
standards in order to appear excellent. This is innocent enough but when it is
overdone, as it was at the A.F.A., it tends to weaken the sense of "honor"
because "honor" accents not the end result so much as the way it is reached
Dean Dillard gave examples of this tendency.
Turning more specifically to those factors which might have a bearing at
Virginia, Dean Dillard first emphasized that there is no use glossing over the
fact that there can be a conflict of values between loyalty to friends and
loyalty to an honor system. The conflict becomes all the more poignant
of an honor system that loyalty to the system transcend loyalty to any single individual
or subgroup. Using the analogy of a poker game he explained why an honor
system, if correctly understood and adequately communicated, attempts to eliminate
doubt on this point and why such terms as "ratting," "squealing," etc. are not appropriate.
A good deal of publicity from all over the nation has been directed to this
point, so the Committee felt it should not merely state a conviction but spell out
the reasons for it very strongly. It attempted to do this and to reinforce its
reasoning by using analogies which pointed up sharply the potential conflict in our
society between loyalty to friends and higher loyalty to society. This phase of the
Committee's report is attached to this summary as an attachment.
The important point in any school with an honor system is to be sure this is
clearly understood by all students and the faculty.
These observations brought Dean Dillard to the most critical finding of all.
As at West Point ten years earlier so at the A.F.A., the core of the cheating and
its spread was sharply centered on the recruited athletes and particularly those
engaged in football and basketball. At this point, he showed the Board an elaborate
chart graphically disclosing the progressive involvement of those who were and were
not recruited athletes. The statistical findings were also eloquent. While only 4%
of the entire Wing (as the student body is called) were implicated, no less than 44%
of recruited athletes were implicated either as direct peddlers or users of examinations.
Dean Dillard suggested that the reasons for this heavy involvement were not too
difficult to discern. They were not attributable, in his opinion, to any sweeping
assumption that athletes are inherently morally inferior to others. The Committee
considered such an assumption "grotesque." The evil lies in the psychological damage
done to the recruited athlete before he comes to college whereby he is made to feel
that he is so wanted that general rules don't apply to him, second by the policy of
segregating him once he arrives as by special training tables, housing, etc., which
reinforces the earlier damage, and third by the intensification of close personal
friendships attributable to the tough shared experience which they undergo together.
The Committee did not find that academic pressures were extreme, and very few of the
athletes were in danger of failing. They just took the easier course and while aware
of the system were not sufficiently aware of their higher loyalty to the Wing as a
whole or the abstract values implicit in the system.
One wryly humorous remark emerged from an interview which Dean Dillard had
with one of the football ring leaders. When questioned as to why he implicated
Cadet X but not Cadet Y, he said, "We knew Cadet Y believed in the honor system,
so we couldn't trust him. You couldn't trust fellows like Y."
The moral here for Virginia appears clear. It is to be sure so long as we do
recruit, that (a) we make it abundantly clear that the student is to be treated on
exactly the same plane as all other students, (b) that we imbue all members of the
coaching staff with the need to stress this point. They are in a particularly good
spot to exercise a healthy influence and to shape a healthy attitude among the
squads committed to their charge. (c) While training tables may be a necessary
adjunct to the toughening job, any other tendency to segregate the athletes should
be resisted and, finally, (d) the whole trend toward bigger and bigger gate receipts
and winning for the sake of winning should be resisted because of the subtle effect
it has in distorting the values of a university and indirectly imposing a strain on
the whole system, of which the honor system is a part. The Committee was quite strong
on this point. It suggested that if intercollegiate athletes are deemed an integral
part of the total educational experience, it should not be made to depend on gate
receipts.
Another finding that might apply to Virginia but one to which the students are
sensitive focusses on the need to limit the scope of the honor system. If it is
made to bear too heavy a burden, then it might fall of its own weight. That is why,
although it may seem illogical to refrain from extending it to all the manifold
affairs of life, it is yet wiser to limit it to academic matters or, at least, to
matters of honor which are focused on the academic community. At the Air Force
Academy, the tendency was noted to stretch the system too far so as to make it cover
trivial matters.
Dean Dillard ended on one other note. He said that at the A.F.A., as at West Point,
the overwhelming majority of Cadets believed in the honor system and would have bitterly
resented any attempt to eradicate it. Nor is there any evidence, in his opinion, that
American youth has gone soft and irresponsible. On the other hand, the study on cheating
undertaken by a social scientist at Columbia, which the Committee considered, does
suggest that in those schools where there is no honor system cheating is pretty rampant,
and even in those which have a system it is more prevalent than is generally believed.
| Board of Visitors minutes June 4, 1965 | |