University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor Day

Law Student Examines Honor System Limitations

The points that Mr. Keith Bunch
has made with regard to the Honor
System raise substantially valid
questions which merit response.
Earlier, Mr. O.Y. Lewis proposed a
revision of the Honor System that
limited its scope to matters closer
to the university community that
under the present system, but still
purporting to protect fundamental
student interests. Mr. Bunch asked
whether there could be any compromise
at all for lying, cheating and
stealing without sacrificing the
basic spirit of the system. I submit
that while Mr. Bunch's criticisms
are well taken generally, they do
not reflect either the ideal or the
real situation at Virginia. Two
points will help clarify my position.

The first point is that the system
as applied is not as broad and
absolute as Mr. Bunch suggests it
might be, nor should it be so broad.
There is and should be room for
interpretation and change according
to contemporary student standards.
Nonetheless, honor is honor wherever
one is, and lying is lying both
in Washington State and Charlottesville.
One who lies or steals in
Washington State impugns his integrity
just as much as one who lies
or steals on the Grounds. In both
cases, the spirit that one should feel
to give the system meaning is
absent.

In other, closer cases, the spirit
demanded of a student under the
system is altered and shaped by
prevailing student attitudes. At
present, for example, the consensus
is that the lying provisions do not
apply to lies to women, nor often
to the "locked-in" lie. While a lie to
a woman arguably is just as much a
lie as one to a man, the spirit of the
Honor System here teaches that
such a lie is not always a lie. I do
not quarrel with this. A strong
system should carve out certain
well-defined exceptions that the
students believe should not be
encompassed by the system. The
point is that such exceptions do
exist in the Virginia system.

The second point is that quite
possibly the Honor System is too
broad to withstand judicial attack.
Law students are often criticized
for bringing legal considerations to
bear on the honor system issue, and
I will be no exception. Nevertheless,
such considerations are relevant.
In short, the student must
conform to the regulations of his
university that are "reasonably"
imposed and which are relevant to
its function as an educational
institution. If the conduct sought
to be restrained does not reasonably
relate to the university's
function, then the connection may
be too attenuated to bring the
conduct within the disciplinary
authority of the institution. The
real question here is not whether
lying is dishonorable in Washington
State (most students would agree
that it is), but whether the
university students have a legitimate,
reasonable institution-related
interest in imposing expulsion on
one who so transgresses.

I have attempted to show, first,
that the system inherently and
consciously recognized many of
these limitations by the exceptions,
lack of enforcement standards, and
policy of the committee to "bend
over backward;" and second, that
such limitations should and must be
made a part of the system. The
logical question now is: with all
these built-in safeguards, why not
leave the system as it is on its face
and rely on the safeguards in the
way it is applied to protect student
interests. I can think of three
reasons.

First, a student should have
relatively specific notice of what is
and is not forbidden. Second, the
confidential nature of the proceedings
so far have precluded using
former fact situations as precedent
so that in effect each case establishes
new standards. This means
that unfairness could result with
different results in two substantially
similar cases. Third, it is
better to admit the limitations and
strengths of the system openly than
to hold the system out as something
that it is not, cannot, and
should not be.

Thus I agree with Mr. Bunch
that honor is honor wherever one is
and that there can never be a
satisfactory substitute for complete
integrity. But I also agree with Mr.
Lewis that the students' interest
does not now, should not in the
future, and legally cannot hold
itself out to encompass the whole
area of a man's honorable dealings.

The Right 'Urge'

I would like to take this
opportunity to clarify a few points
concerning the Student Council's
proposal, "...urging that the University
Band...abandon the practice
of playing 'Dixie'...."

The Council is not addressing
the right people. The University of
Virginia Band and the University
Pep Band are separate entities.
Although they have similar membership
and facilities, they operate
independently and have little or no
influence on one another. The
University Band is a formally
recognized and fully accredited
course in the music department at
the University receiving funds from
the state, the music department,
and the Student Council. The
University Pep Band is not formally
recognized, receives no credit or
funds, and operates, whenever possible,
to serve the athletic department.
The University Pep Band
plays 'Dixie.' The University Band
does not. If the Council wishes to
urge something, it behooves them
to make sure they are urging the
right organization.

During the football season last
Fall, the University Pep Band,
following a suggestion by Mr. Paul
Saunier, discussed at length the
question of playing "Dixie" at
future athletic events. At that time
the members voted to continue
playing "Dixie" until it was significantly
demonstrated to them that
the majority of the students would
rather not hear it. It is still in our
repertory.

This year's Pep Band has been
disbanded as there is no more need
for it this semester. It will be
reorganized at the beginning of
next Fall's semester. That organization
will again discuss the relative
merits of "Dixie" if it seems
necessary to do so. I cannot speak
for that organization, but I have
little reason to feel that that policy
will change. If the Council wishes
to formally present its "urge" to
the people it concerns most, I
suggest they talk to next year's
University Pep Band.

Student Newspaper

Is it not strange that the student
newspaper at the University of
Virginia is published by an editor
and staff who are not directly
responsible to the student body?
Every student attending the University
directly pays a portion of the
operating expenses of The Cavalier
Daily. The Student Activities Fee
which each student pays as a part
of his or her semester bill at the
beginning of each semester supports
a major part of the operations of
The Cavalier Daily.

A student newspaper is a powerful
tool for molding opinion - not
only on the editorial page, but also
through the choice of news to be
printed, the percentage of total
space to be devoted to any
particular news item, and the slant
cast on a given story, both by
commission and omission. Any
organ with power such as that
vested in The Cavalier Daily should
be controlled by those who pay for
its operations.

At the present time the staff of
The Cavalier Daily is a volunteer
group composed of those students
actively interested in journalism.
The editors of The Cavalier Daily
remain a hand-picked group. How
does this occur? Each year's editors
effectively retain the services of
younger staff members only if
those younger staff members fit
neatly into the mold of thinking of
the editors. When the time arrives
in the spring of each year for the
selection of editors for the following
year, The Cavalier Daily staff
votes for the new editors. The
current editors are virtually assured
that their ideological choices will be
elected. If an electorate with a
particular ideological bias is retained,
the ideological outcome of
the election is predetermined.

I maintain that the students of
the University should direct the
policy of the newspaper for which
they pay. The self-perpetuating
elite which currently directs the
policy of The Cavalier Daily is an
affront to the entire student body.
This affront will continue to be
manifest as long as the organization
of The Cavalier Daily who are
responsible for the policy, editorial
and otherwise, of the newspaper,
should be elected by the student
body in a yearly University-wide
election.

It may be argued that an editor
or editors elected by the student
body might not possess the technical
competence to publish a
top-rate student newspaper. This is
a very real concern. However, the
technical management and the
establishment of policy for a
newspaper are two distinct and
readily separable areas of responsibility.
Co-editorships for the two or
three top posts would be the best
solution. Policy would be formulated
by the editors elected by the
student body.

The staff of The Cavalier Daily
should take the necessary steps to
effect the above-suggested change,
if indeed they are to remain true to
their previously espoused doctrine
of "student control of student
funds." One cannot expect,
however, that such change will be
initiated by a group currently in a
position of power. One does not
generally underwrite one's own
demise. In the absence of such
constructive change, the students of
the University will seek to gain
control of their own student
newspaper by other means.

Gordon R. Calvert

Ultimate authority over the
general operation of The Cavalier
Daily lies in the hands of its Board
of Directors, which consists of the
Vice-Presidents of all schools of the
University. According to the
paper's constitution, the board
"must approve all budget requests
and other requests for money from
the Student Activities Fund; it
must approve the elections of
positions on the Managing Board
[editor, managing editor, business
manager]; it shall direct other
changes in the operation of The
Cavalier Daily it deems necessary..."

Thus the student newspaper at
the University of Virginia is published
by an editor and staff who
are responsible to the student body
through its elected representatives.

To our knowledge no one has
ever been "effectively unretained"
as a member of this staff for
ideological reasons or because he
does not fit into the "mold of
thinking of the editors." The
Cavalier Daily is, as you say, a
volunteer activity - to the extent
that we welcome any and all
volunteers who have the desire and
ability to do the work. - ed.

Recruiting

By recommending, in the March
4th issue of The Cavalier Daily, that
the faculty participate directly in
the recruiting of black
undergraduates, Mr. Hirsch has
indicated one means by which
individual members of the faculty
might extricate themselves from the
parliamentary tangle which represents
the best efforts of the faculty
as a whole. Frankly I doubt that
the turn out and sustained interest
will be sufficient for any thorough
canvass, and I would argue that
those who do volunteer might more
effectively be employed in recruiting
black graduate students.

Although white schools must

actively recruit black undergraduates,
it should be acknowledged
that at least in 1969 the
black students who choose to enroll
in black colleges and universities do
so for very good reason.
example, these schools, unlike the
University, have through their prior
efforts inspired sufficient confidence
in the major foundations for
the funding of present transitional
programs.) The situation for prospective
graduate students, however,
is quite different. To take Mr.
Hirsch's department, English, as an
example, only five black universities
offer even master's degrees in
English. The black colleges do
produce capable candidates for
graduate study, but the candidates
usually choose graduate schools
the North and Midwest. (Of the one
black college with which I am
familiar, no black faculty member
had attended any white university
in the south.) Successful recruitment
by the Northern and Midwestern
schools has taken the form
of very glossy and sufficiently
vague literature. (During the two
years that my wife and I handled
graduate school placement for one
black college, the only attempt at
personal recruitment came from
Virginia in the form of a telephone
call placed by Mr. Bowers.) In view
of its location it would seem that
Virginia could do much more, and
direct faculty participation might
be the means. Personal recruiting is
essential; Virginia must combat the
image provided by the only other
direct contact that many of the
black students have with the
University, the bigoted and/or
cowardly public school administrators
which we proudly number
among our graduates.

There are thirty black colleges
and universities in Virginia and the
contiguous states; these could be
easily reached, and perhaps some of
the hundred-odd other black
schools in the South could also be
visited. Conversations with deans
and department chairmen at these
schools might encourage curricular
changes at the colleges to ease the
difficult transition into graduate
schools. Several of our fellow
institutions, for example, have set
up fifth year programs. It is even
conceivable that our own self-assured
university could learn from
these conversations. To take Mr.
Hirsch's department as an unfair
example, one of the faculty recruiters
might bring back ideas for
black literature courses, or he might
bring back some of the second
language techniques which have
been successful in the teaching of
English at the black schools. Most
important, he will bring the capable
black graduate students who, as the
South continues in its segregated
ways, will eventually teach generation
after generation of black
students.

Individual faculty members need
not even organize themselves into
parliamentary lethargy; whoever is
interested should contact the
Woodrow Wilson Teaching Interns
or National Teaching Fellows on
the campuses in which they are
interested. Addresses of the Interns
and Fellows are easily obtained,
and eager cooperation is almost
assured.

Coalition Warning.

We have been disturbed in the
course of the controversy about the
student coalition proposals by the
tendency among students and faculty
to accept these recommended
actions as representing unequivocal
and direct ways of fighting "racism"
at the University. The sponsors
and supporters of these proposals
no doubt feel that they are
in possession of revealed truth and
a logic so persuasive that it must
totally prevail. Those who would
demur are branded with the epithet
"racist," or some equally pejorative
variant thereof.

Nevertheless, we must not allow
the mass hysteria which is sweeping
our country and now threatens our
University community to intimidate
us into silence. It is to be
hoped that even in these revolutionary
times, arguments may still
perhaps have two sides. So amidst
the chorus of cliche-ridden acclaim,
we think we have the duty to
suggest some of the implicit and
explicit dangers in what the student
coalition would have us do.

(1) We cannot see how the
proposal to raise the minimum
wage scale for non-academic University
employees can solve the
problem of poverty or racism.
Indeed, the effect of this action will
have a result precisely the opposite
of that intended by its supporters.
We are opposed to this proposal
because we predict that its effect
will be to render people unemployed
and hence to increase
poverty. The issue is not a moral
one, but a scientific one capable in
principle of being resolved by
empirical evidence. Unemployment
among black teen-agers is running
about 25%. Recent estimates of
outstanding economists have suggested
that in the absence of legal
minimum wages such unemployment
would now be under 10%.
Minimum wage legislation declares
that it is better for an individual to
be unemployed at $1.60 an hour
than employed at $1.00 an hour.
Although it is not intended to do
so, this action would increase
poverty and a sense of betrayal
among low-income blacks in our
community. On any interpretation
it seems to us presumptuous for
students to recommend this action.
It is an action which will have no
costs to the students. The costs will
be borne exclusively by those
low-income groups which can least
afford to do so.

This discussion of minimum
wage laws leads us to comment on
one of the student proposals with
which we can agree. Acceptance of
this proposal would leave the
University free to decide upon the
maximum rates of pay for its
employees. President Shannon's remarks
(The Cavalier Daily, 2-26-69)
lead us to believe that legislative
regulations have prevented the
University from granting wage increases
to some categories of
non-academic employees. Note that
the issue in this proposal is not
minimum wage legislation but
rather the desirability of abolishing
maximum wage legislation. We
conclude that both maximum and
minimum wage legislation are objectionable
goals.

(2) The proposal that we create
a student body which is fully
representative racially, economically,
and sexually of the population
of the state is in our opinion
tragically misguided. The mayhem
and turmoil of adjusting our student
bodies to comply with such
proportional representation surely
would create problems that would
tax the logical ingenuity even of
those who support it. But aside
from the practical problem of
implementation, it is our contention
that it is potentially dangerous.
The only basis for judging a man's
potential is the content of his mind
and character - his skin color, sex
and economic status are irrelevant.
To ask that the University consider
the latter in selecting its students
involves racial discrimination and
would in effect be a Quota System.
What it says is that if 30% of the
Virginia population is black, 30% of
students, ipso facto, should be
black. The Quota System, especially
as applied to the percentage of
Jews in a student body, has usually
been taken in enlightened circles to
be a detested feature of admissions
policy in American ivy league
universities. To embrace it and
extend it to every racial minority,
economic group and sex is now
proposed. It is ominously reminiscent
of the Hitler Nuremberg laws
which imposed special disabilities
upon Jews because they made up
more than their "just" proportion
in various occupations. To bring
about the correct "racial balance"
they were relieved of their jobs and
made helplessly dependent upon
the state for their livelihoods. It
was the first step on the road to
Auschwitz. Those who support this
proposal are in effect saying that
racial discrimination if practiced by
and for the right people is permissible.
But they need to be reminded
that intentions and results are often
very different, and the principle
underlying this proposal is ultimately
incompatible with any goal of
intellectual excellence.

(3) To demand that "the University
stop sending recruiters to
secondary schools that discriminate"
will have the effect of
injuring the innocent along with the
guilty. Those black students who
happen to have been admitted to
largely segregated institutions will
simply be excluded from any
possible consideration for entry
into the University. It is possible
that these black students may not
share the student coalition's moral
fervor in this matter.

(4) The demand that the Director
of Athletics actively engage in
the recruitment of black athletes
ignores the experience that individuals
have had when brought to
universities under such a prescription.
Last summer, Sports Illustrated
ran a remarkable series of
articles indicating that black athletes
feel degraded as a consequence
of this unseemly talent hunt.
Recognizing that they were recruited
solely because of their
physical abilities and skin color,
they rightly experienced a sense of
frustration and exploitation. Their
outrage is justified.

The differences that we have
with the proposals of the student
coalition reflect mostly differences
in predictions regarding the effects
of these policies. Unfortunately, it
is often much easier to question a
man's motives than to counter his
evidence or arguments. There is a
regrettable tendency on the part of
many young intellectuals, of all
people, to bring the support of
outraged indignation to their views
by regarding those who differ with
them as "racist" who want to
achieve "racist" objectives. This
attitude cuts off the possibility of
rational discussion by refusing to
accept the possibility that others
might have much the same objectives
and simply differ in their
judgment about how to achieve
them.

W.I.T.C.H.

Women's International Terrorist
Conspiracy from Hell, an organization
of women seeking to end all
forms of sexual discrimination, is
appalled by the Board of Visitors'
attitude on co-education. In particular
we object to part C.3.a. of
the Resolution on the Admission of
Women: The number of qualified
male applicants should not be
curtailed as a result of the admission
of women.' The statement
should read: 'Women will henceforth
be admitted on an equal basis
with men.'

The implication of the Board's
statement is that admission of
women to the University is a
privilege, not a right. When it is
recognized that a segment of
society has been denied equality, in
this case the right of women to
attend any public educational institution
for which they are qualified,
then the situation must be
immediately corrected. In competing
for admission to the University,
women must be completely
equal to men. Sally Howe