University of Virginia Library

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.