This is a time of change. There
are essentially two responses which
any system can make to demands
for change. One response can be to
attempt to brainwash the people
living under the system or coming
into it - that is socialize them and
convince them that they really
don't want a change. The other
response is for the system to amend
itself both structurally and normatively
along lines that reflect the
changes being demanded by the
people living under the system. If
the system fails in either of these
responses and if the people continue
to desire change then at some
point the "irresistible force meets the
immovable object" and the third
alternative, i.e. the destruction of
the system, becomes a likelihood.
We are being given this set of
choices in a perfectly crystallized
and polarized form in the current
campaign for President of the
College. The people living under the
Honor System have indicated the
desire for changes. And what is the
response of the candidates? The
two Political Society candidates,
Mr. Hodges and Mr. Clement, adopt
the first alternative — they want to
"educate" (read — brainwash) us
into thinking that we don't really
want any changes in the system.
The only difference between them
is that Mr. Hodges seems to prefer a
more "historical" approach to his
"education" campaign and seems to
be a more sophisticated social
engineer than the incredibly weak,
(and male-chauvinist) Mr. Clement.
But neither of them suggests any
substantive changes — they both
adopt response number I which
could not be better calculated to
bring us closer to alternative number
3 mentioned above.
Only one candidate offers us an
intelligent, thought-out response o
the clamor for change. Mr. Murdock
is clearly the only reasonable
choice, and I would hope that those
of us in the College who both want
to preserve Honor and modify the
system, which I believe to account
for the majority of us, will show
the concern we have for the future
of our Honor System by turning
out and voting for Charles Murdock.
