University of Virginia Library

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.