University of Virginia Library

Joel Gardner

And Along
Came
Murdock

In the spring of 1968, two
hirsute young radicals stunned
University regulars by tossing their
hats into the race for Student
Council. To a student body
conditioned to insipid campaigns,
the exuberant semi-farcial nature of
the Anarchists campaign tactics
proved invigorating; and the two
activists were subsequently swept
into office by a record breaking
vote.

Now, a year later, the less
verbose and more accomplished
half of the dynamic duo, Charles
Murdock, has again blessed the
University with his candidacy. This
time, however, there is no pretense
of farce of satire. Mr. Murdock is
quite serious. He wants to be
President of the College; and he has
some salient ideas and sentiments
that are of profound significance to
the present Honor Committee
election and to the entire concept
of the President of the College.

Definite Stand Taken

Mr. Murdock in his initial eight
point platform has challenged many
of the basic precepts of the present
Honor System. First, he has
a number of procedural
changes that he believes would
result in a more "courtroom-type"
system. But as far greater
importance is the substantive
revisions that he has approved. Mr.
Murdock is the first candidate for
Chairman of the Honor Committee
in recent recollection to openly
advocate the need to limit the
scope of the Honor System to the
academic community. Murdock has
taken a definite stand on this issue,
and in the act of doing so
challenges Messrs. Clement and
Hodges to do the same.

Four Possible Responses

So far both Greg Hodges and
Whit Clement have been engaged in
what one may call a "traditional"
campaign. They both stress the
time-honored solutions of better
orientation and personal
responsibility to assuage the ills
that afflict the Honor System. The
two caucus candidates have not as
yet, however, promulgated definite
stands on the question of
substantive change. There are four
possible approaches they can
assume in response to Mr.
Murdock's challenge: a) Ignore the
issue entirely b) Agree with the
proposed changes c) Defend the
present system d) Say they will
attempt to ascertain student
opinion through a poll, referendum,
etc., and then interpret the Honor
System accordingly. It is necessary
that Mr. Clement and Mr. Hodges
issue precise statements concerning
their views on substantive revision.
There was a time when candidates
could play down this issue. That
time is no more. Mr. Murdock has
forced a showdown.

Broaden Presidential Scope

In addition to challenging the
scope of the Honor System, Mr.
Murdock has challenged the nature
of the position of the President of
the College itself. He believes that
the President "as the highest
elected representative of the
University's largest school" must
take an activist position and
become involved in University
political affairs. According to the
candidate, the President should not
confine his efforts to the Honor
Committee, but should actively join
the crusade to right all the
wrongs that burden the
University.

Mr. Murdock is here advocating
a policy that could be exceedingly
important in this election. The
position of President of the College
is synonymous with that of
Chairman of the Honor Committee.
When we select an individual to be
President of the College, we do so
in regard to his ability to serve as
Chairman of the Honor Committee.
If we start electing the Chairman of
the Honor Committee according to
the candidates' views on the
transitional program, C. Stuart
Wheatley, and the advisability of
playing Dixie, then the Honor
System will irrevocably suffer. An
individual's political beliefs have
absolutely no relevance to his
position on the Honor Committee.
And selecting an individual as
Chairman according to his political
beliefs can only work to the
detriment of the Honor System by
subordinating questions of honor to
questions of politics. I feel the
position of Chairman of the Honor
Committee should remain above
political issues as long as the
Student Council exists as the
proper channel for political
opinion.

Mr. Murdock's candidacy thus
poses another salient question to
the student body. Do we want to
turn the position of Chairman of
the Honor Committee into a
political office? The student body
must give this question serious
thought. For Mr. Murdock's view of
the Presidency of the College has
significant meaning both for the
students' electoral decision and the
future of the Honor System.