Reasonable Doubt
According to members of the
Honor Committee only when the
guilt of the accused has been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is he dismissed. Under a penalty of
lesser degree, it is not unreasonable
to think that a student might be
dismissed when there was "a gray
area" of doubt.
Past Committee representatives
have also felt that lesser penalties
would overly tempt the student to
lie, cheat, or steal, knowing that he
would eventually be allowed to
return to the University. Many
students have felt that a system of
graduated penalties would rob the
concept of honor of all of its
credibility.
Another perplexing question
that faces students is how far
should the system extend. Whether
to tie the scope of the system to
just the academic areas of the
University or to keep it more as a
"complete" system of honor has
been debated ever since the beginnings
of the concept of an honor
system in 1842.
The scope of the system is
inextricably tied to what the
current student generation thinks.
Many areas such as gambling and
drinking, used to be part of the
system, but are no longer covered
today.
A vociferous opponent to many
aspects of the system, Rhodes
Scholar Pieter Shannkkan, commented
that "there is only one area
where agreement is possible, and
where we should take action
because other large communities,
like the State of Virginia and the
United States, do not: academic
practices.
"Cheating on exams, plagiarism
and similar offenses are not covered
(by other authorities); unlike lying
about your age, cheating on an
exam injures this community far
more directly and significantly than
it does any other. So the academic
area alone should be the subject of
our concern."
Other students just as strongly
oppose the idea of limiting the
system just to academic areas. They
point to the "spirit of honor"
which pervades all aspects of a
man's life. For many students and
past honor committees, a lie outside
the academic sphere of the
University is just as dishonorable as
