University of Virginia Library

Stuart Rochester

History 2; Special Master's
Scholar (1966-1967); DuPont Fellow;
Assistant Editor of "Essays
in History; History Club, Loyola
College, Baltimore.

1. No. The majority of first-year
graduate students at the University,
coming from other colleges
and presumably intent on getting
down to serious study, would
rather not be bothered with an
Honor System orientation in the
first place. They are generally
cynical or skeptical of the system,
and to gather all of them together
in one hall for an orientation
session and to spout on the sanctity
of tradition and the nobility of
ideals-which has been the customary
procedure-is, inevitably, to invite
snide remarks.

The orientation should be
handled in smaller groups, with
speakers taking a more realistic,
low-keyed approach which stresses
the practical benefits of the system
rather than its cherished principles.
It is my understanding that
a committee headed by the incumbent
Graduate School president,
John McNeal, is presently
considering such proposals.

2. No to both questions. It
seems to me that a system of
multiple standards or "degrees
of punishment" works to the advantage
of one likely to be convicted
under the present absolute
standard and to the disadvantage
of one likely to acquitted. Such
a system may have the effect of
preventing some expulsions, but it
would also encourage convictions
in some borderline cases.

However, light the penalty, conviction
on an honor offense carries
with it a certain stigma and
often irreparable damage to an
individual's reputation and self-respect.
For that reason, I prefer
the present absolute standard
where convictions are based on
decisive evidence and where one is
required to be sure beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused is
guilty. This single standard of
judgment and of guilt, to my mind,
is the best possible safeguard
against the system's becoming mischievous
or abused.