The Cavalier daily. :: Thursday, April 3, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

The appearance of the familiar
campaign poster and the call of the
errant politico are harbingers of yet
another lethargic University election.
Virginia students are not
famed for their political attentiveness,
and it would be really
astounding if more than fifty
percent of the student body cast
their votes on election day. This is
truly unfortunate, as the upcoming
campaign is of paramount importance
to every member of the
University community. For the
balloting that will occur two weeks
hence does not relate to purely
political matters, but is concerned
with our most cherished and
revered tradition, the Honor System.
And the current election of
members to the Honor Committee
comes at a time when many of the
basic precepts of the present Honor
System are being seriously challenged
by a significant number of
students.

Student Cynicism

It does not take an exceptionally
perceptive individual to notice
the rising feeling of cynicism
toward the Honor System. This
cynicism, however, is not directed
toward the Honor System as an
institution; there is near unanimity
in the belief that the existence of
the Honor System benefits both the
individual student and the University.
It is specific substantive issues
that are being challenged. There is
talk of limiting the scope of the
system to Charlottesville or in the
ultimate case to the classroom
itself.

Candidate's Responsibility

Others would keep the
system on a national scale but
would eliminate certain specific
offenses, i.e., passing a phony I.D.
The important point is that there
appears to be a widespread dissatisfaction
with the present status of
the Honor System. The discontent
is not new. There has always been
some individuals who have found
fault with the system. But the
dissatisfaction has now reached a
point where it cannot be ignored. It
is of the utmost necessity that the
candidates for the Honor Committee
face up to these problems and
attempt to solve them, and not
discard them in the name of
tradition and honor.

We take pride in the fact that
our Honor System is completely
student run. Neither the faculty nor
the administration can impose their
own ethical concepts of honor
upon us. The Spirit of Honor by
which we live is governed by the
beliefs of the contemporary student
body. The effectiveness of such a
student run Honor System is
jeopardized, however, when the
rules that govern the students are
no longer congruous with their
ethical values. If most of the
student body believes that passing a
phony I.D. is not an honor offense,
then to say that it is an honor
offense is a travesty of the system.

No Self-deception

Our Honor System can remain
effective only if it is supported by a
consensus of the student body. An
honor system that is not supported
by the students breeds only cynicism
and dissatisfaction. That system
may look fine on paper, but it
will not be realistically effective. As
Prof. Robert Gooch stated to the
entering class of 1955: "No self-deception
is possible. An Honor
System either works, or it does not.
And if it does not, it is not really an
Honor System. It does not exist."

Student Poll

The burden of making sure that
the existing Honor System is
commensurate with the values of a
consensus of the student body falls
upon the incoming members of the
Honor Committee. How is the
Honor Committee to find out what
a consensus of the student body
believes? An extensive and well
constructed student poll is the best
answer. But then the question
arises, what is to determine a
consensus? Does 51%, 75%, or 90%
constitute a consensus? That will
have to be determined by the
members of the Honor Committee.
Thus, the ultimate burden falls
upon the student body to choose
those individuals for the Honor
Committee who will conscientiously
and objectively review the Honor
System and take those actions
necessary to ensure the support of
the students for the Honor System.

I am basically a traditionalist. I
believe that the existing Honor
System should not be substantively
changed. But how many of my
fellow colleagues agree with me? If
a consensus does not, then the
Honor System must be changed
before it becomes an ineffectual
and archaic body of rules; an object
of cynicism and scorn.