University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'Forced Honor' Is No Honor

As a newcomer and first-year
graduate student at UVA, I would
like to explain how frustrated, disgusted,
and finally bored I became
at the honor "initiation" ceremonies,
(September 17.)

Sitting and sweating in the compulsory
convocation, I was reminded
of the religious policies of Henry
VIII and of the Valois in the
sixteenth century. (No real deja vu
mind you; I was just looking for
analogies to put the whole thing in
its proper hole.) In England, all
subjects if they were to remain a
part of the state were required to
take an oath of supremacy, that is,
Henry's supremacy over the Pope.
And to be a member of the French
state was to be a Catholic. Now
freedom of conscience was thoroughly
upheld.

But since Catholicism was right,
your conscience had just better be
Catholic. And so to be a member of
the UVA state, you must declare
your faith, your conversion. Then
you can have freedom of speech
and thought, having already agreed
to think and act in one way.

Stemming from this illogical
equation "to think is to act" and
from the resultant dictum "thus,
think rightly," one further inconsistency
is evident. UVA as a state
and federally supported school
claims not to discriminate according
to creed. Hypothetically, someone's
creed might be Machiavellian
or one which incorporates stealing
from businesses and not lying to his
friend.

More likely, one might just do
what he has been taught is right,
because it takes less energy and
worry. He might consider what
moral rules have no intrinsic value,
no logical justification whatsoever.
Yet, his behavior would parallel
that of the most scrupulous individuals.
Nevertheless, regardless of
personal convictions, one must
agree to abide by the honor system
on his application for admissions.

Presumably if he refused to
agree with the concept of enforced
honor, then he would be denied
admittance on the basis of his
ethical creed. If government funds
impinge upon a school's compliance
with citizens' rights, then UVA
should not be getting aid. In effect,
it prosecutes those who will not
sign the oath and finds them guilty
of thought crimes.

Now I would be the last one to
deny the practical advantages of a
moral system based upon fear and
reprisal, ethics by fiat. Indeed, my
personal ethical system is identical
to the Honor System in its particular
infringements. However, it
would seem that ethical decisions
are voluntarily made or they have
nothing to do with honor.

They have all to do with getting
into a school. The absurd situation
is created in which I would feel
compelled to trust someone who
did not sign the code as a matter of
principle rather than someone who
did so just as a part of registration.
Who wouldn't sign the pledge just
because he was afraid of getting
caught? He is certainly not going to
be honest about his dishonesty.

As Judge Dillard said, Honor is a
matter of character and of personal
approval of so-called a priori principles.
His arguments based on pragmatism
are an admission that we
should uphold the Honor System as
a system, not as principle; and at
that, a system too weak to maintain
itself by any other procedure than a
permanent exile.

So following a discrete herd of
about fifty into a room, I was
dishonorably honorable. I signed
my card. I lied by saying that I
truthfully believed in mandatory
integrity.

Without a lengthy and boring
tirade concerning the article
entitled "Opinions Vary on
Coeducation" in the Wednesday
issue of the CD, I wish to protest
the biased, absurd, and inadequate
reporting found therein.

Although blatantly vague and
uninformative through the first
seven paragraphs, the last five were
a real prize, being: offensive and
unacceptable. Not only were the
opinions expressed
non-representative of all the girls I
have talked to, but entirely contrary
to all our thoughts. If our
"brooding" first year woman really
exists, (the one who doesn't like
guys running around the dorm) she
has misrepresented all the first year
women and the coeducational scene
at U Va.

Coeducation has been and will
continue to be a learning
experience, socially as well as
academically. The first year women
don't view guys as an "obnoxious
group of children testing their
wings" nor do we mind being
talked to or asked out without a
formal case history presentation as
an introduction.

If the guys on McCormick Road
think the upperclassmen have taken
over, take another look. NO one
has taken over; and contrary to
popular belief, we are not swamped
with dates. If the situation is
revolting to you, you have my
maudlin sympathies. WE are not
discriminatory snobs and would
like to meet guys who do not
epitomize the attitude in the
concluding paragraph. We are
excited at being the first to take
advantage of coeducation at Ava
and look forward to the help and
friendliness of all the ex-male
chauvinists.

As long as U.S. population
continues to grow, and as long as
the average person continues to
expect and demand loudly more
and more consumption, we will
continue to face the crises referred
to in your editorials of September
28. The conclusion, which I find
inescapable, is that we must
drastically decrease our population
if we are to maintain even our
present standard of living.

The alternative is clear; the
science of ecology has taught us
what happens when any species
"blooms". Science and technology
can only postpone the day of
reckoning and make the eventual
disaster even greater.

To expect more and more out of
a system which has decreasing
available resources in critical areas
and which is beginning to show
signs of decreasing efficiency is
clearly absurd.

Why must the Government
always come to our rescue? Why
can't we solve our own problems
without going to Big Brother?
Surely the people of this country
can solve the questions of today
without employing the
monumental ineptness of
governmental bureaucracy.

If you don't like a product,
don't buy it. If you don't approve
of the practices of certain
companies, don't buy their
products. If certain leaders of
industry seem to be socially
irresponsible, refrain from
patronizing them. Use the "profit
margin" to your advantage, for the
businessman is quick to recognize a
change in consumer demand.

If there exists a market for a
pollution-free automobile, you can
bet Detroit will try to develop one
as soon as possible. If there is not
such a market, all the governmental
coercion in Detroit is not going to
produce the desire on the part of
the people to purchase a
pollution-free car. Don't make
Washington do your dirty work.

If you can't make the American
people do something themselves
(taking the trouble to boycott the
companies that pollute our
environment), maybe the problem
of pollution is not as serious as you
think.