University of Virginia Library

Words, No Forum

We do not feel that it would be
appropriate for us to consider editorially the
various issues and aspects of the Honor
System and the positions taken on them in
last night's debate-if nothing else, they were
certainly covered thoroughly by the
participants. We must, however, make several
observations on the course of the debate
which we found particularly distressing.

Mr. Schenkkan, we feel, was not the
conscientious, constructive debater he
pretended to be prior to the debate. It became
quite obvious that he was more concerned
with gaining the support and approval of the
audience for himself and his "side"-with
"winning" the debate-than he was with
opening the floor to conscientious,
constructive consideration of the Honor
System. He was consistent in his tack of
rebutting and arguing with the most trivial
details of Mr. Trent's presentation; he was
consistent in his failure to consider the issues
in anything but the most pragmatic terms. Mr.
Schenkkan, we fear, does not really
understand the intangibles-the spirit-on
which any Honor System must be based.

Another approach of his distressed us.
With lamentable frequency he chose to make
his opinions clear by debating positions taken
by Dean Braxton Woody in his address to the
first-year men earlier this year. He seemed to
think that Mr. Woody was the last word on
the Honor System for everyone who favors
it-that, in fact, Mr. Woody was the Honor
System. We are sorry that he chose to address
so many of his remarks to one man's
statements rather than to the issues
themselves as they were introduced.

This debate was an excellent opportunity
for constructive consideration and evaluation
of the Honor System. Mr.
Schenkkan, unhappily, in his constant
non-constructive approach, effectively
destroyed a situation which could have been
invaluable for legitimate and conscientious
discussion of such a vital issue from every
angle. It was as though he expected the
audience to rise and applaud and Mr. Trent to
shout "touche" after his every thrust. We
hope no one in the audience was duped by his
elegant rhetoric; that he expected them to be
duped is an insult to their intelligence; that he
hoped to achieve anything is an index to his.