University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Honor System Debate, Editorials Provoke Response

Wednesday night's debate on
the Honor System succeeded
primarily in airing many of the
basic divisions of thought
surrounding this institution of the
University. Perhaps the most
constructive action to take in the
wake of this discussion is an
analysis of the debate that would
provide a valuable foundation upon
which the students of the
University can accept, destroy, or
reconstruct a code of Honor among
gentlemen.

Of singular importance to this
analysis is a characterization of the
two major participants. While not
actually necessary for a discussion
of the Honor System, it is
significant in that it offers the
reasons and basis upon which the
observer of the debate could draw
conclusions as to the future of the
system. Furthermore, such a
description relays the way in which
the speaker demonstrated his
sincerity and depth of convictions.
Personality assassination is not the
intended direction of these
descriptions, but rather an
understanding of the first
impressions received.

Howard "Buddy" Trent is
presently a second year medical
student at the University. During
his undergraduate study here he
was President of the College and
thus Chairman of the Honor
Committee and spokesman for the
system. Standing at the podium
discussing the topics of the evening.
Mr. Trent's composure could not be
described as calm or confident of
his position. Indeed, throughout
the Forum's presentation he
adhered strictly to the
traditionalistic view of the Honor
System unless forced to abandon it
in the face of pure reality, that is,
straight fact. He lacked the poise of
a person who knows that he is on a
solid foundation of fact or for that
matter anything else, and reminded
one of a person who steps from
solid ground into mire and finds
himself slowly sinking with only
cobwebs to grasp for support. Mr.
Trent was most unconvincing,
usually substituting the theoretical
dead-end "I fell" for the more
realistic facts.

Pieter Schenkkan is a
fourth-year man in the College. He
is presently Vice-chairman of
counselors in the first year dorms as
well as a representative of the
College on the Student Council. His
remarks to the assembly were
reasonably precise as opposed to
the rambling answers of Mr. Trent.
Mr. Schenkkan's comments were
made in a cool and confident style
on an extremely delicate topic, (it
should be remembered to Mr.
Schenkkan's credit that he was
presenting doubts and not demands
for the abolishment of the Honor
System.), and punctuated with
facts rather than feelings. He
presented an argument that was at
the very least more believable than
Mr. Trent's.

To rehash everything that the
two men said last night would not
be beneficial in the context of this
editorial. A summary of their major
thoughts, however, would provide
some insights into the dilemma of
"Honor." Mr. Trent defended the
traditional thought about the
Honor System, while Mr.
Schenkkan took the part of the
devil's advocate and cast doubts on
the present system. He was more
disposed to look at the system as an
ethics code rather than an Honor
Code.

The whole question of whether
the Honor System should be
maintained, modified, or abolished
was breached by both men. Mr.
Schenkkan called for modification,
recognizing it as a code of ethics.
He furthermore suggested that in a
strong community the weak are
rehabilitated, not expelled as in a
primitive or weak community.

Mr. Trent spoke for the
maintenance of the present system,
though in reference to lying and
stealing he admitted that the
system was ineffective and
something would have to be done
in the way of modification. When
asked how the Honor System is to
be modified, Mr. Trent was unable
to answer.

Fortunately for the assembly,
Larry Altaffer, the present
President of the College, was in the
auditorium and able to provide an
answer. His answer is perhaps the
key to the entire dilemma. He said
that the purpose of the Honor
Committee is to decide what honor
offenses are, and that this is done in
the context of present student
opinion. The obvious way to alter
the Honor System is to elect those
people to the Honor Committee
who do, in fact, represent the
consensus of student thought.

If this were done at the
University, then those who oppose
the Honor System would lose their
rasping voices. Obviously the policy
of electing men who represent the
majority of thought is not followed
here. In the last Presidential
election less than half the eligible
students voted and thus one can
only assume that none of these
people wanted the system changed.
Otherwise they would have elected
a man of their choice. There are
two reasons for the turnout at the
polis. Either the majority of the
students support the traditional
system, in which the opponents of
the system must abide by majority
rule. The other alternative is that
the majority of people are not
voting, and the policy of the Honor
System is being decided by a
minority of students.

The latter of the two
suggestions is the more realistic, as
shown by student turnouts at
elections. Most of the non-voters
will tell you that there was no one
running whom they could support.
And yet if they were sincere in
their beliefs, certainly a student
could be found in whom they could
place their confidence. Fresh
thought has been repeatedly
welcomed by the students as
evinced by the recent student
council elections when two
Anarchists, full of energy and
convictions, swept the election. A
candidate can always be found,
therefore the no-candidate excuse is
invalid.

As a matter of fact it is more
than invalid, it is a poor excuse.
Their cries of no representation is
the way out for those people who
don't mind expressing their views,
or attacking the establishment
without ever having to take
action. And the fact that there are
large numbers of people at this
University who take no part for no
valid reason discredits the cries for
the abolishment of modification of
the present system. This statement
in no way casts any reflections on
Mr. Schenkkan for he is recognized
as one of the most active students
on the grounds. It does cast doubt
on the credibility of those students
who agree with Mr. Schenkkan in
their minds and hearts but who will
take no action for whatever their
reasons may be to change the
system through the use of their
own energies. Until they do, the
Honor System will remain what it
is, a system of laws limited by the
minority opinion that guides its
destiny.

Michael B. Russell
College 2

On the contrary, Mr. Trent
made it quite clear that he was not
a spokesman for the Honor System,
rather that he was expressing his
own opinions, those of a
second-year med student.

On the contrary, Mr. Trent
could easily have been described as
calm or confident of his position; in
fact, he displayed amazing calm and
confidence in the face of Mr.
Schenkkan's rather questionable
approach to the issue. Mr. Trent
was in the impossible position of
having to try to convey to what was
largely an unsympathetic audience
the deeper sense in which a matter
such as honor and a system based
on it must be considered. You, like
Mr. Schenkkan, seem to prefer a
pragmatic approach to the
issue-one of "realistic facts;" you,
like Mr. Schenkkan, seem to display
no concept of the spirit which is so
necessary to the success of an
honor system. Perhaps Mr. Trent
was ominously accurate when he
said that honor is something
someone either has or does not
have.

As for the preciseness of Mr.
Schenkkan's remarks relative to
that of Mr. Trent's, anyone knows
that it is much easier to be precise
when attacking, for example, a
person-such as Pete Gray or Mr.
Woody-than it is when trying to
convey ideals to pragmatists.

At no time did Mr. Trent, "in
reference to lying and stealing,"
admit that the system was
ineffective. Perhaps you would like
for him to have done so.

When asked how the system is
to be modified, Mr. Trent was not
"unable to answer;" he merely said
that there was no formal machinery
for modifying it.

We are happy to agree with you
in your charges about those who
prefer to let others express their
own opinions or do their work for
them.

We are distressed to find out
that people such as yourself did, in
fact, fall for Mr. Schenkkan's
approach; we are distressed to find
out that some members of the
audience were of a mind to be
inclined to want to "squash" or
defeat Mr. Trent rather than to
listen open-mindedly to what he
was trying to say; we are distressed
to discover more and more people
who would rather glorify and
support the glorification of the
weaknesses of the Honor System
than try to understand and accept
its great and numerous
strengths-ed.

The editorial, "Words, No
Forum," in Thursday's edition of
The Cavalier Daily was unnecessary.
Mr. Schenkkan and his fellow
"misfits" had already been
thoroughly condemned in
Wednesday's editorial, "Debatable
Debate." "Words, No Forum" was
also a bit premature, as it is unusual
journalistic practice to editorialize
on an event not yet covered in the
news section of the paper. The
photographs of Mr. Schenkken
(your spelling) and Mr. Trent in
Thursday's edition left something
to be desired - text.

I am not questioning the merits
or demerits of the Honor System in
this letter. I am questioning the
fairness and intelligence of that
portion of The Cavalier Daily staff
responsible for the above
mentioned editorials. It is certainly
not surprising that Thursday's
editor discovered that Mr.
Schenkkan "was not...the
constructive debater he pretended
to be prior to the debate." How
could a member of a group which
"Debatable Debate" labeled as
being anywhere from "less
conscientious," to something which
"slinks" in and out of gutters
(really!) be expected to be a
"constructive debater?"
Wednesday's editor welcomes the
debate, but is this welcome
extended to, the debater?
Particularly striking was this
editor's new rendition of an old
cliche in the statement: "There are
plenty of students at this university
who still hold personal honor in the
same regard as did those of the
past... We ask those whose
standards are below the minimum
for this university not to try to
lower that minimum to suit their
own capabilities. Let them go
somewhere else..." This is
reminiscent of a bumper sticker I
recently saw beside a "Wallace for
President" sticker on a local pickup
truck, which read in red, white, and
blue: "America: Love It or Leave
It."

Thursday's editorial also
attacked Mr. Schenkkan for
choosing Dean Woody as the
principle proponent of the Honor
System. Evidently Mr. Schenkkan is
guilty of reading "Debatable
Debate," which advised gutter
slinkers and fellow travelers to
"talk to Mr. Woody or Mr. Dillard
or most any other alumnus of the
University." This editor evidently
had good reason for placing Dean
Woody first on his list.

My discomfort in reading
"Debatable Debate" and "Words,
No Forum" was anticipated by a
headline in Tuesday's Cavalier
Daily, which stated:
"Non-Discrimination Pledge May
Destroy Housing List." It is the
racist attitude of the community,
and not the non-discrimination
pledge, which may destroy the
housing list, and I question whether
it was carelessness or a Freudian
slip which produced this headline.

Last spring, the first edition of
The Cavalier Daily edited by the
present staff promised that the new
staff would be neither decidedly
conservative nor liberal, but fair.
Has the Spirit of April died?

James C. Joyner
College 4

You, Sir, would do well to read
those two editorials again.
Wednesday's editorial did no more
than to ask those who would speak
out against the Honor System to
examine and evaluate their own
motives. If you read it again you
will notice that we spoke of "the
gutter" only in specific reference to
people who condone lying,
cheating, and stealing-not in
reference to persons who would
debate the Honor System. The
generalization is yours.

Wednesday's editorial did not
advise "gutter slinkers" to see Dean
Woody or anybody else. It
specifically advised only that group
who are not sure about the Honor
System because they think it does
not work or has never worked to
see Dean Woody or other alumni.

We still believe in what we said
in April; we ask only that our
readers make an effort to read our
editorials fairly. It is a cinch that
anyone can interpret anything
however he chooses, but let's make
sure that we do not derive our
interpretations by such practices as
generalizing specific and specifically
limited statements; further, never
forget that direct statements to the
contrary of interpretations and
implications tend to override them.

Lest we be misinterpreted once
again, let us make it quite clear that
we do favor open discussion of the
Honor System. We realize and
readily admit-as does everyone
who supports the system-that it
does have weaknesses which need
to be corrected. We would ask,
however, that those who try to
illuminate them for correction in
the future assume a constructive
and conscientious attitude toward
doing so rather than merely strike
out at petty trivialities in strictly
pragmatic terms-they owe such an
attitude to the University
community as well as to the
matters which they are trying to
discuss. We must always remember
that when we are seeking to correct
those weaknesses we must not blow
them out of proportion; similarly,
we must never forget or lose sight
of the strengths. -ed.