In response to the Honor
System 'on trial' before a U.S.
District Court.
The Honor System is a
singular hallmark of a great
University. If it is to be
retained at U.Va. it should not
rest solely as a last vestige of
southern tradition. As law
professor Daniel J. Meador has
put it, "if a case involving a
dismissal under the Virginia
Honor System were to be tried
in court, it would be most
important from the
University's standpoint that
the full flavor and history of
the Honor System be
developed in detail."
The question of the right of
students to impose legally
binding rules on other students
has not been contested in court
since the inception of the
honor system in 1842. This
delegation of disciplinary
authority (distilled through the
State's Constitution, Title 23
of the Code of Virginia, the
Manual of the Board of
Visitors, and the administrative
authority of the President) is
now being challenged in a U.S.
District Court on
constitutional grounds.
It can be said that the
University, by its formal
support of the Honor System,
has severed the enrollment
contract between the student
and the University – and is the
responsible authority
dismissing the student.
Is the fact that the honor
committeemen act both as the
jurors of the facts and the
judges of the consequence of
these facts as issue for the
courts? Should student
autonomy continue to be the
ivy behind which ultimate fate
of a fellow student is decently
concealed?
And, will the contrast that
divides the traditional stand of
the Honor System and the
"cry" for change necessarily
become the disparity between
high ideals and low
achievement?
