University of Virginia Library

Your editorial entitled "Nominations"
of February 27th was a
unique compliment to the poor job
of reporting on the Jefferson Party
convention which appeared the day
before.

In the convention article, the
reporter's interpretation of Dave
Morris' speech emphasized the
necessity to "orientate students to
the Honor System," a seemingly
worn-out, conservative plea. While
Mr. Morris recognized the importance
of adequately informing students
about the existing system, he
did more than merely 'express
concern over...the need for a
consensus on public honor.' If I
may go so far as to accurately
quote him (a practice your reporter
would be wise to initiate), Mr.
Morris said, "The greatest test
facing the Honor System will be its
ability to change, and yet this
should be one of its greatest
strengths."

After misinterpreting the emphasis
of Mr. Morris' speech, your
reporter then proceeded to obliterate
the ideas expressed by Dave
Bowman. Mr. Bowman was not so
concerned with "How will the
committee interpret a feminine
'white lie' as he was with the
legitimate problems imposed upon
the Honor System "when women
become our peers and not our
weekend entertainment." His most
potent idea (and one which was
surprisingly absent from the article)
was that of "an Honor System
based upon a participatory democracy
involving every student."

In your follow-up editorial, you
posited two ideas that I would like
to refute. First, it is virtually
impossible, at least in the Jefferson
Party, for "a few people...(to)
effectively decide who is going to
run long before the actual nominating
votes." Upon examination you
will find that membership in the
party is open to every college
student at the University, and that
such fact was duly publicized in
The Cavalier Daily several days
before the convention. Moreover,
the various nominations were open
to every party member. Second, I
think you will find that "apathy, at
least as far as the nominating
process is concerned" was not
"rekindled" by the two new
parties: rather it is an unhappy state
that has long existed at this
university, and one that the new
parties have tried to abort. It is
hard, however, to generate interest
in uncontested nominations, as you
seem to have recognized. This
brings me to one final point.

There seem to be few people
who care enough about the spirit of
honor to make the sacrifice of
running for a position on the Honor
Committee, and, if elected, to
serve. In this new day of emphasis
on meaningful, interpersonal relationships,
which are based, above
all, on mutual honesty and integrity,
it is regrettable that so many
students here have partially lost the
excitement of a beautiful agreement:
We will not lie to our
brother; we will not cheat him; nor
will we steal from him.