University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Honor Controversy Continues

Your pious conderunation in
"Debatable Debate" of those who
oppose the Honor System because
of "the concept of personal honor
for which it stands" is incompatible
with your repeated declarations
that "the debate is a healthy
thing." It is indeed the concept
itself which most demands
re-evaluation, especially in this
period of intensive re-examination
of all accepted ideals. One may
consider theft, lying, and cheating
- at least when greed-motivated -
as serious infractions, but the
demarcation of honor offenses,
judiciary violations, and justifiable
acts is too clouded in light of the
penalties and stigmas attached to
each. Here, the examples are lying
to the Dean, on a car registration
card, and to a date, respectively.
Furthermore, there exist actions
quite as damnable as those defined
so arbitrarily as dishonorable,
varying with circumstances and the
individual's concept of morality.
How can Mr. Gwathmey accuse the
opposition of "selfishness" when
the System embraces
self-satisfaction as its primary
motivation, or of "incapabilities"
when the System admits its distrust
of the student's capacity to
determine an acceptable honor of
his own, or of "gratifying his own
ego" when the System awards him
the "Honor of Honors" for merely
keeping his nose clean in three or
four places? The Editor has
delivered a deep insult to a
considerable population with a
distinct moral fibre because of its
variance with his own, and served
up an especially unappetizing
sampling of "honor" for the newer
members of our academic
community.

'Editorializing'

The tirade launched by your
editorial staff against Mr.
Schennkkan is disgraceful and
despicable in every respect. He
should be commended for his
courage and frankness, rather that
condemned for what you call his
"consistent failure to consider the
issues in anything but the most
pragmatic terms." Pragmatism, if
anything is a virtue that has been
buried too long in the quagmire of
tradition and conservatism
surrounding the University.

The editors should have
restricted their comments to the
subject matter that they repudiated
in the opening of the harangue
against Mr. Schenkkan. That is, "to
consider editorially the various
issues and aspects of the Honor
System." It is the duty of the
editors to evaluate the issues, not to
castigate their proponents.

The Cavalier Daily should
publicly apologize to Mr.
Schenkkan for their irresponsible
and defamatory comments, and
desist from such "editorializing" in
the future.

Unfair Attack

I feel compelled to write this
letter in response to your editorial
"Words, No Forum" in the
September 19 issue of the C.D.
Your attack on Mr. Schenkkan
seems to me most unfortunate and
unfair. I attended the debate on the
Honor System and I saw no
evidence that he was being, as you
accuse, destructive. I would like to
point out that I was more in
sympathy with Mr. Trent's
arguments than those of Mr.
Schenkkan, but I think both
debaters were reasonable and
intelligent in their approaches.

Mr. Schenkkan's criticism of
Dean Woody's address, which you
condemned as equating Mr. Woody
with the Honor System, seems
relevant because, after all, to many
people on the Grounds, Dean
Woody is the symbol of the Honor
System. And as for your comment
that Mr. Schenkkan appeared intent
upon winning the debate, I was not
aware of it at the time and Mr.
Trent did not appear to be either.
Mr. Schenkkan certainly touched at
the heart of the greatest institution
at this University, but his
comments were hardly destructive.
He was, after all, debating against
the Honor System in its present
form. What did you expect?