The Cavalier daily. Wednesday, September 18, 1968 | ||
Debatable Debate
Tonight's debate on the Honor System
should be a matter of great concern for every
student. For years the Honor System has been
the best thing about the University, until
recently its only claim to fame. As a result the
University has always been the symbol of
honor in higher education in this country. To
debate the famous Honor System of the
University of Virginia is, for some, as unheard
of as it would be to debate the use of the
cross as the symbol for Christianity-for them
even the thought of such a debate is profane.
For others, however, it is something long
overdue. It is with the latter group and their
motives that we are mainly concerned (it's
time for the former group to wake up and
realize that the Honor System is no stronger
than its ability to undergo such a debate).
There are a variety of reasons for which
someone could welcome such a debate. The
most conscientious and idealistic persons
welcome it fully confident that the system
will withstand it and emerge stronger because
of it; other conscientious persons welcome it
because, although they favor the idea of an
honor system, they feel it is time for this one
to be overhauled or brought up to date if it is
to continue to work well; others welcome the
debate because they feel it is essential to keep
the system out of an ivory tower and close to
those who live under it. We trust that those
sponsoring it fall in one of these categories.
Less conscientious persons, however,
welcome the debate as the first step toward
the destruction of the Honor System. There
are those who would like to destroy the
Honor System just for the sake of destroying
what they regard as the ultimate symbol of
the establishment; such people are an asset
only to their own egos. Others would like to
see the Honor System fail because they would
rather not make the sacrifices and assume the
responsibilities required to live under it; they
should not have come here to begin with.
Others would like to see the system fail
simply because they see nothing wrong with
lying, cheating, or stealing in a
take-what-you-can-get society; they should
slink back to the gutters which produced
them. Others are opposed to it simply because
they think it has never worked and never will
work and that it does nothing but harm; they
should talk to Mr. Woody or Mr. Dillard or
most any other alumnus of the University.
We feel that the debate is a healthy thing
and that it does not signal the first faltering of
the Honor System. At the same time,
however, we urge those who welcome it as the
first faltering to examine themselves carefully.
They should consider the alternatives
carefully before they let such a proven
institution fail. They should search themselves
to find out whether it is the system they
oppose or the concept of personal honor for
which it stands. If it is the latter-if they
realize that the fault for them lies not with
the system but with the concept which it
engenders and demands-we ask them not to
drag those who have not forsaken their
personal honor down with them in their
selfishness. There are plenty of students at
this university who still hold personal honor
in the same regard as did those of the past;
there are enough students of this mettle
available to fill the University. 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-there are plenty of
schools much better academically than this
one where their standards are accepted.
Again, let us emphasize that we do not
oppose the debate. We agree with many of
those who favor it that the Honor System
should perhaps be overhauled or, at least,
inspected. How else can we be sure that it is as
successful and effective as possible? Our only
complaint is with persons who oppose the
Honor System because of their own
incapabilities or selfishness.
We hope those responsible for the debate
are certain of their motives. We urge those
who attend it to listen carefully and to
evaluate their inclinations, whatever they be,
carefully before they let them become
conclusions. We are certain the Honor System
can survive if the students set their collective
mind to making it survive. We hope they will
not let it fail because of sheer laziness or
because of the work of a few misfits.
The Cavalier daily. Wednesday, September 18, 1968 | ||