University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

No Ritual: Law Student Denies Counter — Mandate

The writer of the editorial
(3/24/71) on the College elections
is surely infatuated with his own
dramatic phraseology. "After
Elections, Some Questions" has all
the answers; just listen: "The
election took place, essentially
unnoticed by even a half of the
College, and was attended by all the
crass ritual and perennial boredom
which befits a drudge of history,
that captive archetype which is
becoming the Honor System. And
no one cares." Good reflective
analysis, that.

Should we care? You're damned
right we should — about candidates
that ran a clean campaign without
party squabbling, about the good
sense shown by those who did vote,
and about the railing editors who
call tradition "moribund" because
it isn't dead to their satisfaction.

You know better and so do
most of your readers. For a
majority not to vote is never good,
but when was there ever an election
— especially a student election, here
— without substantial apathy? Why
is this the year of the significant
"counter-mandate?" Why did you
find the mental sophistication and
political savvy of the candidates so
lacking, when the alternatives you
left them were to make a joke out
of the Honor System or not run at
all? Do you really think that those
who didn't vote in the election
don't care about the Honor System
itself? Do you care?

Another matter, the Law
School: well they might object to
the Honor System, for what
difference it makes in the College.
Grumbling in the Law School is
nothing new; better than 80 per
cent of each entering class came
from schools without a comparable
Honor System and hardly anyone
there can say he came here because
of it. A concept of honor is legally
irrelevant to the real world of
corporations, consumers' rights and
landlord-tenant law. These in turn
are irrelevant to that special
standard of community
acceptability enforced here for over
a century: As long as the
undergraduate schools support it, it
is theirs to keep. A poll, not
petitions in the Law School or your
analysis of the College elections,
will determine the extent of this
support. We will all see who cares.

You close by warning Mr. Bagby
that he must heed your strictures or
make rubbish of his elected office.
Someone should make such
demands of the newly-elected
(speak of "crass ritual!") officers of
The Cavalier Daily, should tell
them with the same self-righteous
certainty that their efforts are
destined to produce only pure
rubbish. And only the janitors care.

Allen Barringer
Law 2

—Ed.

Blacklisted?

Your March 17 editorial on
committee appointments gives rise
to reversal questions that the
Administration needs to answer. It
is a well known fact to many that
last year's nominations for
committees that Student Council
proposed were "slightly altered"
during the summer by the
President's office. Although the
explanation given was that the
Administration wanted a more
diversified student representation
on their committees, many persons
who had been prominently involved
with the Strike were noticeably
eliminated from the Student
Council list. It had been the
practice in previous years to merely
rubber-stamp these nominations.

You said that, "Student input
on these committees is essential for
student interests to be best
represented when the
Administration makes any
decision." If the University is truly
interested in student input that is
made through established, orderly
channels, why has this year seen the
demise of the Administrative
committees? I have been a member
of the Calendar and Scheduling
Committee for two years, one that
you note as, "...renowned for [its]
power and importance." It has met
twice this year. One of the major
controversies of last year was
ROTC. The Committee on ROTC.
Affairs of which I am a member,
has yet to meet. The list goes on
but the trend is apparent.

If the Administration is
concerned about student
participation in University affairs,
and if it wants students to work
through "established lines of
communication," then it should
upgrade its committees to the point
that students will be making a
significant contribution to the
decision-making process of this
University. If it fails to do so, then
more students will see their only
hope in unestablished lines of
communication.

Not Consulted

Concerning your recent "Honor
Statement," I wish to state that
whatever students the Committee
consulted in order to gain a view of
student sentiment did not include
myself or any of the numerous
people with whom I have discussed
the matter since the article was
published.

The Honor Code clearly
classifies stealing as an infringement
of the Honor System. The code
does not provide for a system of
graduated offenses; you are either
innocent or guilty. It also provides
only one fate for the guilty,
dismissal.

In this case, where the students
are admittedly guilty, I believe the
Honor Council has not only
misjudged student feeling, but
made a serious mistake in
compromising the Honor Code.

If we are going to retain an
honor system, let's enforce it;
otherwise, abolish it.

Herbert S. Curlee,
College 1

(The above letter was also signed by
six other first yearmen).