University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Honor System Controversy Continues

Mindful of the dangers of
oppressing your readers with legalistic
evaluations, and of somehow
dishonoring the Honor System
itself by aggravating the current
dispute, I too must speak. I do so
only because the issue is of such
great moment to the University and
its national reputation. My aim is a
simple one: to expose the issue in
its most general form. The letters
by Messrs. Lewis (Feb. 23) and
McDonald (March 5), on the one
hand, and Mr. Bunch (Feb. 27), on
the other, manifest divergent conceptions
of the purpose of the
Honor System and consequently of
its appropriate scope.

In Mr. Bunch's view, the Honor
Code establishes thy loftiest of
standards: each student at the
University is required to be an
"honorable man," and the University
itself, through the Honor
Committee, is obligated to expunge
from its midst any student who, at
any time and at any place while a
member of the University, deviates
from this standard. Naturally, such
a broad purpose admits no limitations.
Just as a discriminating
individual selects as his friends only
men of the highest integrity, so the
University should continue student
associations only on the condition
that they maintain high standards
of personal conduct. For, the
University as well as the individual
will be judged by the company it
keeps.

The problem with such an
expansive view is simply that the
University is a major social institution,
not an individual. An institution
of higher learning can ordain
and fairly enforce a "morality of
aspiration" through an honor code
no better than can the State
through the Law. "Thou shalt
neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal" is
only slightly less susceptible to
concrete application than is "do
Good and avoid Evil." Unless these
words are to be given their literal
meaning, the System will inevitably
be characterized by annoying uncertainty.
In fact, despite the
ominous rhetoric, the System at the
University has never operated literally,
and the current controversy
has been engendered in large part
by its unpredictability. Moreover,
as is often the case with lofty,
amorphous standards, little beyond
the obvious is in fact enforced. And
so we come full circle. A community
declaring its preference only
for the most honorable of men
ostracizes only the most dishonorable
of men.

If the Honor System is to be
truly rationalized, then it must be
recognized both for what it is today
and for what it can realistically
attain. The primary purpose of the
System is protective and deterrent,
as was suggested by Messrs. Lewis
and McDonald. It is designed to
protect the reasonable expectations
of the members of the University
community that 1) they will not be
induced to rely on knowingly false
statements; 2) they will not be
disadvantaged in academic pursuits
by unfair methods of competition;
and 3) their personal belongings
will not be misappropriated by
others. If the purpose of the
System is so conceived, its standards
become both definable and
livable. For example, the University
has no direct interest in the
interests of those outside the
"academical village" and its immediate
environs nor in interpersonal
misrepresentations within the Community
which are intended to
induce no action by another.

Affirmation of a deterrent and
protective purpose, it should be
emphasized, is not denial of a
formative purpose. Mr. Bunch
thinks the System ought to be lofty
enough to imbue its participants
with a pervasive sense of honor. So
do we. But we think this purpose is
better served through participation
in a knowable, realistic and fair
system than in one which is
amorphous, impractical and susceptible
to inconsistency. In short,
the Honor System, properly conceived,
has both a body and a soul.
Mr. Bunch's blithe spirit is simply
not enough.

It should be added that this view
of the System's purpose is not a
new one propagated only by
ill-formed law students. In fact,
despite the tenacity with which Mr.
Bunch clings to his idealized version,
the narrower conception is
more consistent with the original
understanding. The System was
initially conceived as an alternative
to proctored examinations and
covered only cheating at the University.

I would like to make one further
point which I have studiously
avoided up to now for fear that
your readers might sigh "another
law student" and turn quickly to
"Peanuts." The fact that the
University is a major social institution
rather than an individual
imposes not only practical limitations
but also legal restraints. The
university functions neither as a
parent nor as a Church. It serves a
limited social role; especially as a
State institution it must exercise
disciplinary action only for reasons
substantially related to its academic
function and probably only
through certain procedures. Compliance
with the law can be secured
only under the narrower purpose
suggested by Messrs. Lewis and
McDonald. I sincerely urge the
Honor Committee to take immediate
steps to implement that purpose
through promulgation of
reasonable standards.

Myopic View

I am writing in answer to George
McMillan's article in the Monday
Edition. That article is
demonstrative of such a myopic
view of the ends and means of the
Coalition that it should not go by
unchallenged.

First of all, Mr. McMillan says,
"the tactics (of the Coalition) are
futile if not downright destructive."
This is precisely the point: the
objective is to be destructive of
institutional racism at the University
as a first step toward realizing a
better atmosphere for living and
learning.

Mr. McMillan says, "the student
protesters have demonstrated an
intolerance" of those who are not
equally vociferous. This is not the
case. They do seem intolerant -
but not because people aren't loud
enough. They can't hear enough
people! They are intolerant of
those who do not see the validity,
the necessity, and the urgency in
1969 of the expressed goals. Are
they wrong, George?

In addition, their vociferousness
indicates a firm refusal to be easily
dissuaded from their position. Is
this attitude not laudable?

Mr. McMillan says, "Virginians
in general probably . . . have an
aversion to demonstrations," and
"Demonstrations . . . tend to polarize
. . . rather than . . . draw together."
This may be true, "in
general," but I doubt that you can
document that Virginians are opposed
to demonstrations, per se.
What is more fundamental is that
Virginians and many other people
prefer that assembly be peaceful,
and less indicative of bluster than
of genuine appeal for change, less
indicative of chaos than of coherence
of aims. On these two points,
the people of Virginia have little to
argue about. As an oft-quoted
editorial writer in another part of
this reticent state has put it: "(The
demonstrations) reflect credit on
the University."

Mr. McMillan says the demonstrations
have been more concerned
with "a show of strength than with
propagating the goals." I am surprised
that one of George's political
know-how does not (?) realize the
importance of a show of solidarity
and strength. As he said, this is a
state-supported institution. The
political overtones of the present
situation cannot be underemphasized.
And in the American
political system, a pressure group
(which the Coalition and the other
sympathetic students and faculty
may be said to comprise) have to
give evidence of strength and
numbers. (Yes, like the National
Rifle Association!)

Moreover, this is not to say that
signs of strength are more important
than the goals. But the
proposals are old hat. The ideas
have been around for so long. Being
without a neatly typed business
length draft by Tuesday two weeks
ago does not indicate that one is
uninterested in substantively
realizing the goals. Rather the goals
are decided upon. It is the working
out of the most efficient means of
bringing these to fruition that
rightly deserves primary attention
now.

Mr. McMillan questions the
propriety of directing certain of the
proposals "solely to University
officials." In this day of almost
instantaneous communications, I
doubt that Virginians are unaware
that certain of the eleven proposals
are directed not only to University
officials, but to the Governor and
the General Assembly.

But why not initially direct the
argument to University officials?
The Coalition is making an effort at
persuasion. Surely if University
officials, most visibly President
Shannon, were won to the necessity
and urgency of the goals, and
voiced a commitment to these, the
students would be half way home!
Mr. Shannon could then act as
mediator with the Governor and
the General Assembly firmly on the
students' side of the issues. (Is this
a real possibility or is it Valhalla?)

Furthermore, I would question
the propriety of any other initial
tactic. Would you rather, George,
that Mr. Shannon, in his representative
position, from the beginning
be bypassed? Mr. Shannon -
not a student or a student group -
is our customary spokesman in
Richmond.

Mr. McMillan pointed out that
"social reform cannot be accomplished
within a week and a day."
Perhaps, there is a point of
misunderstanding here. The students
have carefully not set deadlines,
not coerced University
officials. (Coercion would be burning
down Cabell Hall or occupying
Garrett for a day). Rather they
have asked only that the wheels for
effective change start rolling, immediately.
That is a far cry from
suggesting that social reform be
accomplished in a week and a day.

Mr. McMillan says, "the orderly
processes of the University have
been moving toward correcting
racial injustices which exist. When,
however, after fifteen years since
Brown vs. Topeka Bd. of Educ., et
al, integration of the U.Va. student
body stands at .5% (i.e., ½ of one
per cent), one begins to think
there's been a greater premium on
order than on moving. Should we
be satisfied with this percentage
figure?

Indeed, implementing major social
reform is qualitatively more
important than negotiating "visiting
arrangements in the dorms." The
aims are somewhat different, and
hence deserve attention on different
levels. The tactics employed
tend also to be different.

I question also some of the
assumption in the article. Force is
not necessarily the logical next
step. In fact, the best way to
subvert that possibility is to show
that moderation pays off. The
administration should ante-up with
a concrete, positive response to the
proposals.

I could go on and on. However,
one final word: When people attack
a moderate, coherent program for
change and a dignified code of
conduct, they only indicate to the
moderate leadership that their
means are inappropriate. Perhaps,
the nay say intend merely to
impede the process of change. But
they really encourage the moderates
to give up the reins of
leadership to those fond of sterner
measures. The process of change
will not be stilled. But a shift in
leadership can easily be brought
about,

'Right-Think'

As a libertarian with a deep
concern for freedom of speech and
opinion, I have noted with great
dismay the more and more frequent
use by the editor of The Cavalier
Daily of the term "right-thinking,"
usually in connection with prescriptions
of precisely what those
persons who are fortunate enough
to fall in that category will think
and do with respect to certain
issues.

The term smacks of totalitarianism,
of a closed society complete
with its own official brand of
"Right-Think" (as defined by the
editor of the state news organ, no
doubt).

I do not question Mr.
Gwathmey's right as an individual
to express his opinions on Right,
Wrong, Truth, Ultimate Wisdom, or
the weather; indeed, I would
defend to the death his right to
such expressions.

But I do object to having the
editor of a socialized "official"
newspaper, for which I am taxed as
a condition of my remaining a
student here, insinuate that because
a person does not choose to
support, for whatever reasons, any
or all of a series of proposals which
that editor is attempting to foist off
on an entire community as "right,"
he therefore "thinks wrong." Such
an attitude is peculiarly inconsistent
with the quotation in the
masthead of the paper.

William A. Wright
4th year college

—ed.

Petty Theft

During the Jefferson Society
cocktail party of Friday evening,
Midwinters Weekend, the
elaborately carved Vice-President's
chair belonging to the society
disappeared from the men's bath
below the Hall where it was stored
for the night. This chair, a picture
of which will be posted on the door
of Jefferson Hall, has no great value
as an antique but is quite distinctive
in design and not easily replaced by
us.

Needless to say the return of
this chair or information as to its
whereabouts would be greatly
appreciated by the Society. It
seems unfortunate to me that
among the departing traditions of
the University should be the Virginia
student's normal assumption that
the grounds is free of petty theft.