The incredible pretension of Mr.
T. N. Gardner's simplistic attempt
to characterize the candidates for
the presidency of the College is
outdone only by its inaccuracy. He
suggests that Messrs. Hodges and
Clement wish to brainwash "us into
thinking that we don't really want
any changes in the system."
As anyone who has been following
the campaign reasonably
conscientiously knows, nothing
could be further from the truth.
Both candidates campaigned for
their nominations on platforms of
immediate and responsible change
before it is "too late." Neither has
hesitated to emphasize the need for
such change. In some cases they
have preferred to wait for the
current Honor Committee's recommendations
before making specific
proposals which might undermine
them. Both have studied the system
intensely in order to gain as much
perspective as possible from which
to work toward the tremendous
alterations it demands.
The idea that Mr. Murdock
offers "an intelligent, thought-out
response to the clamor for change"
is preposterous. His decision to run
for the office was as half-cocked as
are the majority of his motions and
actions as a member of Student
Council. He decided to run much
too recently to have given the
system the study and investigation
so necessary for fulfilling the duties
of chairman. The anarchism on
which Mr. Murdock campaigned for
Student Council and the irresponsibility
which he has demonstrated
ever since have no place in an honor
system so sick and so in need of
thorough and conscientious reform.
No one committed to the preservation
of any sort of Honor
System at the University can
rationally support Mr. Murdock.
