University of Virginia Library

Robert Proutt
Tom Buchanan

—Ed.

We are deeply concerned about the waning
faith of the Honor System. Ours is not to
dictate the direction we personally feel the
system must go, but rather to guide the system
in the direction that will yield greater student
support. We have no fear of instituting the
changes deemed necessary by the student body
as shown by a professionally assisted poll. We
feel that it is time for an extensive evaluation of
the entire system, if we are to maintain its
present high degree of honor. We do not view
ourselves as traditionalists or reformers, but as
open minded individuals who will strive to make
any change that will improve the effectiveness
of our system.

We personally feel that the single sanction of
expulsion is one of the cornerstones of the
Honor System. It is becoming evident, however,
that students are finding it increasingly difficult
to support the system, except in the most
flagrant cases of cheating. They seem to feel
that the possibility of expulsion is too severe to
ever accuse anyone of a lesser offense. We don't
feel the answer to this problem is a system of

graduated system of penalties. This would force
the Honor Committee to arbitrate degrees of
honor and would create more problems than it
could solve. A more equitable solution would
be to maintain the single sanction but reduce
the severity to, perhaps, one year. But we must
consider the two questions of scope and
penalty together for one inevitably influences
the other. The current penalty of expulsion
seems to be responsible for eliminating certain
segments of honor — lying for liquor,
borrowing student ID's, and apparently petty
vandalism. Perhaps a reduction on the severity
of the penalty would halt this growing list of
exceptions. If the scope were further restricted
we would encounter even greater problems in
defining these boundaries. Therefore we would
more readily support a reduction in the single
sanction, and maintain the present scope as a
means of increasing student support.

We feel that the Honor Committee was
faced with a number of unfortunate
circumstances in the recent vending machine
case. But as both judge and juror they were to
decide both the guilt of the accused and
whether or not the defense was reprehensible
enough to warrant expulsion. If they felt that

Tom Buchanan

the act did not warrant expulsion, that should
have been their initial decision. But by
nullifying their original verdict they have
undermined many students' faith in the system.
Ostensibly the reason for their policy decision
was a re-evaluated consensus of student
opinion. But a small group of thirty or so
students can hardly constitute the feelings of
the majority. The entire matter could probably
have been avoided if they had had a more
accurate gauge of student opinion on which to
make a firm decision. We sympathize with the
problem of deciding whether or not to expel
someone for stealing one or two cokes but feel
that the matter was handled clumsily.

In order to bring the system back to the
student body, we need to reopen lines of
communication. As recently, as the early
1950's, the Honor Committee communicated
with the student body through various student
publications. Although we realize that
discretion must be used to protect a student's
privacy, we see no reason these channels of
communication cannot be restored. Regular
reports in The Cavalier Daily concerning the
workings of the Committee, open meetings in
which students can express ideas and periodic
meetings with counselors and Honor
Committee Advisors can all be used to open up
the system and generate more student interest
and participation. It is up to the Honor

Committee to institute these changes, but it is
the responsibility of the student body to make
them effective.