University of Virginia Library

Readers Take Exception
To Honor Exam Editorial

With all due respect for the
January 13 Cavalier Daily editorial
suggesting an end to take-home
exams. I must take exception to
what I believe is a poor proposal.
The editorial is, I think, based on a
misconception of the honor system
- or perhaps it is just plain distrust.

My undergraduate college had
no formal honor system. But it
seems to one uninitiated (until this
year) in the system that the very
core of the honor code is to tempt
and test the student - whether in
the classroom or at his dorm. The
system is based on an optimism in
the honor of gentlemen which is
strangely lacking the The Cavalier
Daily editorial, which speaks of
take-home tests as "suicidal" for
the honor system, "dangerous" and
"gruelling."

The honor system itself is met
with such criticisms at other universities,
gentlemen. "Why put students
to an unnecessary test?" an
MSU or Ohio State would say.
"Just as it is folly to drop a glass to
see if it will break, it is madness to
tempt students unnecessarily by
putting them on their honor in class
during a test." You see, the editorial
is based on a distinction
between "difficult temptation"
(take-home exam) and "easy temptation"
(in-class exam). Should one
be allowed - as a most important
element of the honor code - and
the other be forbidden as "too
dangerous?" Let us admit it - both
are difficult. But we permit both (I
would like to say "encourage
both") because we believe that even
"students who are fearfully uncertain
of their own honor" will
withstand the temptation. We are
optimistic, we trust in the honor of
gentlemen. That's the way the
system works. And we would be
doing it and ourselves a disservice
by changing it to keep only the
"easy risks."

Honor Spirit

After reading your editorial of
January 13th on the subject of
"take-home" examinations, I think
it necessary to raise the following
question: Can there truly be a spirit
of Honor at this University when
students are not given the opportunity
to exercise that Honor?

The issue which I raise goes
beyond the desirability of the
"take-home" exams themselves;
whether or not I wish teachers to
give such tests is not the case in
point. However, many students
may feel that they could do much
better on a test in the relaxed
atmosphere of their own room, or
the library, or anywhere else they
choose to work on it. Free from the
pressures of time and examination-room
regimentation, it is not unlikely
that numerous individuals
would discover their minds to be
clearer and sharper for a given test.
Of course, others might not feel
this way, and this should also be
taken under consideration.

In your editorial, however, I
seemed to sense a feeling that the
Honor System would not be effective
unless the students are continually
reminded of their responsibilities
within it, and are furthermore
protected from too great a
temptation to cheat. This attitude
seems to contradict the very heart
of the Honor System here at
Virginia. Of what value is one's
personal integrity if one cannot be
trusted in a situation which, admittedly,
involves great temptation?
Do we not want students at this
University who are capable of acting
honorably when the temptation
is great to do otherwise? And
perhaps more to the point, do we
have such students, or are we just
kidding ourselves?

Here I must draw a line between
those regulations which are primarily
directed at preventing careless
mistakes, and those which
would restrict the freedom inherent
in our Honor System. Certainly the
checking of library books and the
requiring of identification cards at
sports events, both of which were
mentioned in the editorial, reflect
no discredit upon any student's
integrity. But to oppose "Take-home"
examinations on the
grounds that this involves too great
an opportunity for the students to
cheat, is to admit that too many of
our students are sorely lacking in
honor. Our Honor System can be a
meaningful instrument for personal
freedom only when it is exercised
out of the free will of the individual.
Otherwise it becomes mere
obedience to judicial rules.

In conclusion, I recognize that
the temptation involved in "take-home"
examinations are great. And
yet our Honor System becomes a
reality only as it applies to situations
in which there is an element
of temptation. As for those who
would cheat on such an examination,
they will eventually be discovered
and reported. If not, they
are only hurting themselves. I, for
one, do not feel that more "take-home"
examinations would lead to
any significant rise in cheating. But,
it this were to be the case, might we
not then ask ourselves: Is there
really an Honor System at Virginia?
For the true test of a man's honor
comes not when he is shielded from
temptation, but only when he is
exposed to that very temptation...
and overcomes it.

For this reason, I feel that it is
wrong to oppose the spread of
"take-home" examinations for fear
that this give students too great an
opportunity to cheat, and that they
could not handle this responsibility.
An alternative would be to explore
the desirability of "take-home"
examination, through a poll of
student and faculty opinion. Let
your decision be based on the
practical feasibility and desire for
such examinations, not on the fear
that our Honor System is not
strong enough to meet this challenge.

Treatment

The arbitrary treatment of students
in some realms is increasingly
a matter of concern at this university.
A prime example is that
students, who very definitely pay
"their share" through fees to go to
university athletic events, are
forced to sneak in the back door of
University Hall as if they are not
good enough to mingle with regular
"paying" customers. This, in spite
of the fact that the south entrance
is the one most out of the way
from any approach to the structure,
and the fact that crowds are never
so great that identification could
not be checked at any entrance.

Also, today I had a book
checked out at the library - due in
one week! This, in spite of the fact
that students are allowed to check
books out over semester break. It
was explained to me that I could
come back in a week and then have
it checked out during semester
break. The reasons for this procedure
hardly make any sense, since
few people would be checking a
book out now for just one week.
How about a little consideration for
the students here? Aren't we what
the university is all about?