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.
