University of Virginia Library

System, Not Standard

Purists who judged last week's letter from
the Honor Committee regarding scope limitations
as a betrayal of their sacred trust will
probably consider today's statement tantamount
to a rape of the system. Reversing a
decision made in 1956, the Committee
decided that passing false identification for
the purpose of obtaining liquor would no
longer be considered an honor offense.

Those who criticise this reform might do
well to consider exactly what it entails.
Obviously, the Committee is not endorsing
falsification of age; nor is it forcing anyone to
do so. Those whose personal standards
conform to the 1956 interpretation are still
free to adhere to those standards. But a poll
conducted by the Honor Committee this fall
of a random sample of students selected by
the Office of Institutional Analysis showed
that only a minority of the students here felt
that falsification of age to purchase alcoholic
beverages should be a legitimate concern of
the Honor System. Obviously, the Committee
could not expel a student for an action which
is not considered an offense by the majority.
It therefore chose to make public its decision
to exclude such an action from the sanction
of the Honor System.

The decision of the Committee reflects the
fact that the Honor System does not reflect
an absolute standard of honor. It is a
reflection of those standards and the willingness
of the students to allow themselves to be
governed by them. The falsification of age to
buy liquor is clearly a lie. But just as clearly,
students here do not believe they ought to be
21 before they can drink. The state, however
does.

The Honor System, apart from any
personal standards of honor, belongs to all the
students. Moreover, the state liquor authorities
have nothing to do with it. If they wish to
impose a standard of age upon us, they may
do so and punish us through the law if they
catch us violating it. Therefore, relationships
with the ABC stores fall outside of the
community of mutual trust which is the real
basis of the Honor System. And the students
have decided that, although it may be
dishonorable in the absolute sense to violate
that state law, they do not wish to make it
part of the Honor System.

When the Honor Committee issued its
letter last week, we said that the legacy of the
Honor System is a legacy of change. At times
the System has covered only classroom
offenses. At other times it has covered
appearing on a dance floor with any alcohol in
your blood. The modifications of the past two
weeks are not irrevocable by any means.
Further generations of students may see fit to
change them, perhaps in the near future. We
are confident that the Honor Committee has
reacted sensibly to current fluctuations in
student opinion. We are less impressed with
the attempts they have made to orient
entering students and keep older ones
informed, not only of its actions, but of the
reasoning behind them. To a significant
degree, the Committee has failed to establish
effective communication with its constituents.
And it is only through such communication
that the Honor System, faced with an
expanding and diversified University, will be
able to mold itself and justify itself to
changing student opinion and maintain its
present stature in the mind of the university.