University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XIV

THE HONOR SYSTEM

Among the first enactments there were only
two of far-reaching consequence. The first of
these was: "When testimony is required from a
student it shall be voluntary and not on oath, and
the obligation to give it shall be left to his own
sense of right"; and the other: "Every student
shall be free to attend the school of his choice
and no other than he chooses." These regulations
conferred upon the student a noble freedom and
a high responsibility whose tendency, in the
natural and proper course of things, would be to
add dignity and strength to his character. If the
founder of the University could have lived
through its first decade in the midst of the students
as the professors did, there would have been
an early realization of the ideal results he sought.
Bad judgment, however, postponed them a third
of a century.

If the early professors understood Mr. Jefferson's
object fully and approved it in any measure, their
attempts to realize what he believed would come
to pass were made with little skill. Any one who
turns the thousands of pages of the minutes of the
faculty meetings during the first thirty years of

the University's history must be impressed with
the trivial nature of many of the misdemeanors
which were made the subject of long
and tedious investigations. Did they do anything
but chase students suspected of exploding
firecrackers under the colonnades or in the alleys, or
accused of having dropped in at Keller's confectionery,
or of having engaged in the dissipation
of a strenuous game of backgammon? Officers
paused at doors to listen, or followed students
into their rooms if they suspected them of having
visited Charlottesville without the proper coat,
and did a thousand things that created a constraint
between student and professor and produced
an atmosphere not at all suitable for frank,
manly character or conducive to the growth of
sentiments of trust and honor.

Even stronger conclusions are justified by the
records these well meaning and noble men laboriously
wrote out in their long faculty meetings.
A volume could be filled with extracts like those
that follow, which have been selected for their
brevity and not because they are extreme cases.

"There being positive evidence before the faculty
that W. C. A. was one of a party who fired a
cracker at a professor's door on the night of the
7th inst.; and it appearing moreover from circumstantial
evidence that he was one of the three persons
who attempted to practice an annoyance at
the study of another professor [by tying a rope
to the door-knob!], which facts he does not deny
[he refused to make a statement], therefore, Resolved,
That the said A. be dismissed from the
University." And he was!

"Mr. — and Mr. — having been guilty of

disorderly conduct by singing a corn-song within
and without the precincts on Sunday evening last,
Resolved, That they be reprimanded by the chairman,
and the guardian of the former and the
father of the latter be written to on the subject."

"The chairman [Professor Bonnycastle] said
that he was informed that there was a champagne
party at Keller's confectionery a few evenings
since, which induced him to sit up later than usual
to see if he could ascertain any of the students concerned
in it. About ten o'clock a party of students
came into the University singing an indecent
corn-song. He saw one open Mr. R. K. M.'s door
and go in. He immediately followed the person
into the room and asked Mr. R. K. M. if he was
not one of the party. He confessed it." M. was
suspended for one month.

Corn-songs, "the rag-time" melodies affected
by students in the early years of the University,
seem to have shocked the European professors.
In slavery times the autumn brought on the festivity
known in the South as corn-shucking. The
store of corn was heaped up in a great pile in a
convenient place, and the owner gave notice of
a husking on a night named. A late supper—
always a good one—and usually an abundance of
whiskey were provided. All night, or until the
corn was shucked, the negroes stripped the husk
from the ears and sang plantation melodies. The
singers were usually lead by the best vocalist, who
strutted about on the piles of corn, his head
adorned with a shuck.

"The chairman informed the faculty that Mr.
Wm. J. Robertson obtained leave to attend church
in the University on Sunday last without uniform.

That he wore a coat on that occasion which the
proctor believed was new, and that the inference
was that Mr. R. had recently purchased this coat
in violation of law. On being summoned before
the chairman this presumption was strengthened
by Mr. Robertson's refusing to answer any questions.
Mr. R. was then summoned before the
faculty, appeared and refused to answer any questions
in relation to the charge of having purchased
a coat not uniform. Mr. Tucker proposed the following
resolution, which was seconded and
passed: The faculty having satisfactory evidence
that Mr. Wm. J. Robertson on Sunday, the 4th
inst., wore a new coat which they had reason to
believe he had purchased contrary to the enactments
prescribing uniform,—and he failing to repel
the presumption by any counter testimony,
therefore, Resolved, That he be suspended for one
week and required to go to Bowcock's."

The William J. Robertson thus rusticated was
afterward judge of the Supreme Court of Virginia
and ranked probably as the first lawyer in learning
and ability in his native State.

"The chairman informed the faculty that on
the night of the 4th inst., about half past 11
o'clock the proctor in passing the room of Mr.
— heard the following remarks made by persons
in said room—`Hearts are trumps!' `Play on,
Shannon!' `I hold low!' From these remarks, as
well as the sounds which the proctor heard like
that of cards being played on a table, he was certain
that the game being played was cards. The
door was locked and some little time elapsed before
he gained admission. In the mean time he
heard something like the shuffling away of cards.

On being admitted he found in the room Mr.
—, Mr. —, Mr. —. These gentlemen
looked confused; denied that they had been playing
cards." The charge was investigated by the
faculty, but no more evidence was elicited. Upon
the testimony of the proctor, who knew no more
than he had heard while listening at the door and
reported to the chairman, these students were dismissed
for the remainder of the session! This and
similar cases seem to justify the legislature in
refusing to establish a court in the University
with professorial magistrates empowered to arrest,
try and punish students.

"The chairman informed the faculty that
Messrs. Beverly Tucker and John G. Peyton were
present at a festive entertainment (eating party),
of which the former gentleman is supposed to
have been the provider, given in the room under
the old library. These gentlemen were sent for.
Mr. P. appeared and stated that the entertainment
was a turkey supper. No wine or spirituous
liquors were drunk, the beverage being coffee.
He had nothing to do with furnishing, but was
merely a guest. Mr. T. said that he was present
and contributed to provide for the party to the
amount of four dollars. The whole cost was eight
or nine dollars. T. was reprimanded and his
father informed and R. was admonished."

Beverly Tucker was afterward United States
Consul at Liverpool, and served the Confederate
Government as a confidential agent.

It would be idle to contend that in this new
University there were no faults to mar its history.
There was drinking, and there was gambling, and
it would be matter of amazement if there had not

been. Both were social vices of general prevalence.
Wherever there was a mahogany sideboard
there was also a well-filled decanter to which
every one was free to resort. From homes like
this the students came, and they were not at all
prone to believe that a social practice sanctioned
by their mothers was so vile after all. When they
"indulged" at Vowles's, or "took something comfortable"
at Keller's confectionery, they felt that
the act was the same as when they drank a glass
of Madeira at home, except that the scene was
changed.

It was not quite the same with gambling. They
had not actually been afforded the opportunity at
home of risking their pocket money and credit at
loo or "all-fours." Gaming was a man's sport, a
gentleman's pastime, and society suffered if it did
not sanction it. At the University they felt that
the time had come to assume the vices of full
grown men, and some of them did so.

The foreign professors were not in touch or
sympathy with social practices in the Southern
States. With them gaming was a vice and drinking
equally so. No doubt Dr. Blaettermann drank
his beer, but his beard had grown—he was not a
boy. The American members of the faculty were
in sympathy with all measures of repression.
These young men who indulged in mint-sling and
toddy, and played loo behind locked doors, at
which proctors, "in passing," sometimes paused
to listen, ought to be measured by the standards
of their own day, and then it will be found that instead
of constituting a group unique for their
vicious lives they were about the average of

spirited youths under the disadvantage of too
much pocket money.

The policy of ferreting out all suspicious cases
and allowing none of them to expire by limitation
kept the faculty in almost constant session as a
punitive court. The students summoned before
them were a very small part of the matriculates,
but the trials were attended with difficulty
because the witnesses, if students, could testify
or not as they chose. This did not constitute
the extreme difficulty because the faculty, as the
cases above indicate, seemed not to hold itself
bound to prove the guilt of the accused. A frequent
phrase in the way of preamble to a sentence
of dismissal was, "it appearing to the satisfaction
of the faculty"—which meant that the
faculty was convinced of the guilt of the person
under charges, although the guilt was not established
by direct testimony or even by circumstantial
evidence. But it was not a satisfactory
method, and in 1828 the faculty considered a motion
to expunge the law which exempted the student
from testifying on oath.

The Board of Visitors in July, 1832, gave careful
consideration to Mr. Jefferson's rule, but there
is nothing in their minutes to show how the individual
members stood on this question. Those
present were Cabell, Cocke, Breckinridge, Brodnax,
and Randolph. They were perplexed by the
conditions. It was with their knowledge that the
guilty were punished without adequate proof, for
the student who knew the facts shielded the wrongdoer
by refusing to testify, making an ignoble use
of the freedom Jefferson had given him. The end
of their consideration was that the Visitors did not

repeal the rule, but they passed an ordinance which
nullified it, in effect, by conferring upon the faculty
the power to require any student to state on his
honor whether he knew the perpetrators of any violation
of law under consideration, under pain of any
of the penalties, including expulsion, if he refused
to testify. This power to compel testimony on
honor was made applicable to the investigation of
past as well as future misdemeanors. The retroactive
character of the ordinance was regarded as
peculiarly offensive.

A somewhat careful investigation has failed to
discover a case in which a student was coerced into
testifying. Under the leadership of Professor
Davis the faculty declared by a formal resolution
that this enactment "should be enforced with great
caution, and only in cases of serious and flagrant
violations of law," and in no event should it be resorted
to until the faculty had determined by vote
that the case was a proper one in which to enforce it.
The law had a single year of existence, for the Visitors
in July, 1833,—the same members present except
that Breckinridge gave place to Johnson,—expressly
repealed their ordinance providing for testimony
on honor, and Jefferson's rule was restored,
and is still the law.

The faculty wavered in its loyalty to Mr. Jefferson's
ideals, certainly in so far as his theories concerned
discipline and all that is meant by the intimate
association of students and the frequent contact
with them of professors and officers. The
board wavered likewise, and in this condition of
things the growth of a compelling public opinion
was very slow indeed, but it grew. A large percentage
of the students devoted themselves so earnestly

to the purpose for which they entered the
University that they had little time and little inclination
to clash with the authorities. These men
were in pleasant social and official relations with the
professors and were inevitably impressed with the
noble characters of the men who composed the
faculty. They saw that, while cognisance was
taken of all offenses and punishment was administered
with a firm hand, the truthful and high-minded,
even when in fault, were treated with consideration,
and the really penitent were dealt with
forgivingly.

Through all this complexity lived a spirit of honor
which eventually became the saving grace of student
life and character at the University of Virginia. A
law of honor was evolved, an unwritten code, of
sources difficult to identify with perfect certainty.
Assuredly in part it is rooted in Jefferson's trust as
expressed in his law as to student testimony. It
was powerfully vitalized by the sacrificing lives and
labors of nearly all of the men who filled the chairs
in the University during the first thirty years of its
existence.

As understood elsewhere the honor system means
that at Virginia there is no espionage during examinations
and that the integrity of the papers upon
which the student is graduated is insured by the
written pledge that he has neither received nor given
assistance. The honor system germinated long before
July 4, 1842, when Professor Henry St. George
Tucker offered and the faculty adopted the following
resolution:

"Resolved, That in all future examinations for
distinction and other honors of the University each
candidate shall attach to the written answers presented

by him on such examination a certificate in
the following words: I, A. B., do hereby certify
on honor that I have derived no assistance during
the time of this examination from any source whatever,
whether oral, written, or in print, in giving the
above answers."

But this action of the professors—which was a
vote of confidence—powerfully promoted the
growth of a chivalrous regard for the claims of
honor. The unexpected happened when the students
by impulse rather than premeditation made
the protection of the privilege their own care, and
in more than sixty years the faculty has had no
share in applying a penalty when their trust was
abused.

"She mixed her ancient blood with shame" does
not describe a more veritable social outcast than is
the student who cribs[1] or cheats on examination.
The guilty one slinks away, suddenly conscious of
the awful force of public sentiment.

But the chivalry of the students is concerned with
more than the punishment of cheating on examination.
It does not demand wealth, or any other accident,
as proof of eminence—nor does it demand
leadership or scholarship. Shrinking modesty and
awkward ignorance are not regarded as conferring
the right to molest, but a student whose instincts are
so coarse that he is capable of studied rudeness or
insult to women, cheating at cards, the indescribable
meanness of petty theft,—in a word, who forgets to
be a gentleman in all his dealings,—is made to understand
that he is not fit to associate with young
men of honor and will not be allowed to lower the

moral tone of student life by remaining longer in
the University.

The great apostle of liberty did not fail to excite
at his University a strong attachment to human
rights. His professors believed in them, the students
were jealous of them, and a result is that in
this respect there is no difference between first year
and last year as far as the student's consequence is
concerned. The rights of the raw matriculate are
as sacred as those of the old student who is doing
graduate work and will be defended as promptly.
In such an atmosphere hazing has never occurred,
could not survive. The infliction of indignity and
injury on a "new man" by a gang of associated
bullies would be impossible. Such an association
could not be consciously formed in defiance of the
manly public sentiment which exists here, and if
fatuously attempted in ignorance would be resisted
by voluntary defenders of the assaulted student.

While a student's consequence in the University
of Virginia is not determined by any formal reference
to his antecedents, of course his antecedents
may have the determining effect heredity exercises.
No psychological court sits in judgment to destroy
the force of any law of human nature, but the courts
of public opinion are always open to pass upon the
conduct of men and award the station they earn by
talent, industry, or good or evil conduct. The
judgment of the campus is unerring. Naturally the
student's consequence in this arena is at its lowest
state in his first year. He has no brief in the hands
of his judges. But as time passes evidence increases
and the student grows in regard or disfavor
according to his deserving. In the end every man
goes to his place; accident of birth or wealth cannot
put him in any other.