University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Judiciary Chairman Proposes Alternative To Dilution Of Honor Code

While the current
controversy on whether or not
the Honor Committee should
incorporate graduated penalties
swirls around the University, I
have become convinced that
the present System already
incorporates graduated
penalties, and that the problem
is not so much one that
requires changing the single
sanction system as one that
requires communication of the
existing alternatives to the
student body.

Presently the Honor
Committee has jurisdiction
over all student misconduct
which involves lying, cheating
and stealing. The Judiciary
Committee has jurisdiction
over all other types of student
misconduct, and the
jurisdiction is shared
concurrently with other
judicial bodies-The First Year
Judiciary Council, The
Upperclass Resident Council,
Mary Munford-Gwathmey
Committee, McKim Hall
Committee and the Married
Student Housing Association,
from which an appeal may be
made to the University
Judiciary Committee if the
student is found guilty by one
of these bodies.

The Judiciary Committee
has a graduated set of penalties
and the Committee is presently
studying efforts to improve the
penalties, to make them both
constructive and rehabilitative.
As the Honor Committee
carves out certain areas of
student misconduct which it
does not feel are reprehensible
enough to warrant dismissal
from the University, the
Judiciary Committee will begin
to handle those cases and
utilize its graduated penalties
in dealing with them.

A case in point is misuse of
student ID cards to get into
athletic contests. This in past
years may have been an honor
offense, but because it has
been deemed not so
reprehensible as to merit
dismissal, it is now handled by
the Judiciary Committee.

Another similar case in
point was one which the
Judiciary Committee heard last
week involving a fabricated
refrigerator permit used by a
student in a dormitory. Such a
case in previous years may have
been heard by the Honor
Committee. Now it was heard
by the Judiciary Committee.

In the future, similar areas
of student misconduct may be
carved out of the Honor Code
and given to the Judiciary
Committee, where a fair
hearing will be given and the
appropriate penalty issued if
guilt is determined.

It seems that if a student's
misconduct is in the gray area,
where it does violate a rule or
standard of conduct and may
be dishonorable in the broad
sense but is not so
reprehensible as to merit
dismissal, it should be brought
to the Judiciary Committee.
Granted, the Honor Committee
shall determine whether or not
it will take a case and our
jurisdiction is limited by their
decision. But, if a member of
the University community
questions some student's
conduct and seeks a hearing on
the matter, but does not feel it
is an honor offense, the
Judiciary Committee is the
appropriate body to handle the
complaint. And it does have a
graduated system of penalties,
which should allay one's fears
that expulsion is the sole
sanction upon determination
of guilt.

If students used the present
system in such a manner, only
egregious offenses would
be heard by the Honor
Committee and the Judiciary
Committee would consider all
lesser types of student
misconduct. The single
sanction presently employed
by the Honor Committee could
be kept and used when a
student was found guilty of an
act of lying, cheating or
stealing, as presently defined
by the Honor Committee.

All lesser cases, including
those in the gray area, could be
heard by the Judiciary
committee and graduated
penalties would be
imposed - hopefully
constructive, rehabilitative
penalties.

A system of graduated
penalties for the Honor System
would only serve to weaken
the System and dilute it's
effectiveness. Such dilution
would lessen the meaning of
the Honor Code.

So the answer is not so
much in changing the single
sanction of the Honor
Committee, but in
communicating to students
that they do have alternatives
and that the system only needs
tuning up-but not a new
engine.

While I do not speak for the
Judiciary Committee as a
whole, and this letter is not
intended as such, I do favor
retaining the single sanction for
the reasons stated above.

Fairness

As a candidate for Secretary
in the upcoming Honor
Committee elections, and in
the interest of fairness, I feel
compelled to make known my
opinions on the pertinent
issues involved. I feel this is
necessary as my name, as well
as others, was overlooked by
The Cavalier Daily in their
previous coverage of the
candidates.

There are essentially two
main areas of concern which
are especially pertinent to this
year's election and one to the
election of Secretary in
general. Paramount among
these concerns is the question
of the single sanction.
Although it has been the
subject of recent criticisms, I
strongly support the single
sanction system of the present
Honor Code. I feel this system
is the most viable and practical
one, and that it effectively
maintains the spirit of our
Honor System.

Closely related to this, and
also of prime concern is the
question of the referendum. I
believe that the results of this
referendum, if proven to be
representative of the current
student attitude, should be the
guiding factor in the decisions
made by next year's
committee. The personal
beliefs of Committee members
should not override and
opinions of the current student
body.

Yet it should be
remembered that the main
responsibility of the Secretary
is acting as Chairman of the
Bad Check Committee. As a
candidate for this office, I
believe this committee needs to
better inform students of its
functions and needs to extend
its responsibility into securing
wider check-cashing privileges
with area businesses. By this I
mean striving to obtain the
privilege from University Food
Services to cash checks in
amounts greater than that of
purchase.

It is my hope that this letter
will aid students in their choice
of candidates for Secretary of
the College, and reach more
people than I would be able to
reach personally.

Misrepresented

As a member of the People's
Party, I feel there are two
simple facts which need to be
cleared up due to various
media misrepresentation. First
of all, no proponent of the
referendum or the People's
Party has ever advocated
instituting graduated penalties.
We agree that graduated
penalties would cause the
decline of the Honor System;
however, we advocate only one
alternative sanction in addition
to permanent dismissal. The
penalty we propose is
suspension for the remainder
of the semester from the time
of the violation plus the
following semester.

Finally we ask all students
to consider this fact. Every
year the majority of students
expelled are first or second
year, and yet there have never
been any first or second year
people on the Honor Council.
The Honor Council is supposed
to be representative of the
entire student body and the
time has now come for this to
be true. Claim the power to
decide now!

Qualifications

We the following first
yearmen question whether the
candidates known as the
People are qualified to hold
positions as officers of the
College. We feel that a mere
seven months of residence at
the University does not give
them a sufficient grasp of the
intricacies of the Honor
System to provide the
responsible leadership
necessary to the survival of the
Honor system.

It is obvious from
statements made in their March
23 letter to the Editor that our
observation is correct. The
People maintain that in contrast
to the present system,
consideration should be given
in intent as well as the actual
violation. However the
question of intent is considered
in every honor trial, and this
merely serves to show their
shallow understanding of
today's Honor System. This
and other statements in their
letter lead us to believe that
their platform is but a
hastily-composed, ill-developed
appeal to emotion.

We feel that the only two
candidates who have offered a
well-conceived platform and
have given serious thought to
the numerous aspects of the
Honor System are Gordon
Peerman and Mark Warner.

We urge all students of the
College to support them in the
election.

John Buckley
Bert Ellis
Dan Peak
College 1

—Ed.)