University of Virginia Library

Honor System : Stagnation Or Viability?

By MIKE MILLER

Our Honor System requires more than a caretaker simply
presiding over trials. It requires leadership which is sensitive to
the long-range transition occurring at our University and an
ability to adjust the administration of the Honor System to the
student body that it serves.

Its effectiveness must not only be preserved, but its spirit
must be strengthened. The Honor System must not be allowed to
become a haunt for antiquated traditionalism. The manner in
which the Honor Committee conducts itself has not necessarily
always been synonymous with the Honor System.

The substance of the Honor Code is nearly sacred, but the
traditional conduct of the Honor Committee is not. Stagnation
encroaches upon tradition. If
the precepts of the "Blue
Sheet" can not be realized in
our business transactions, and
if students do not feel a sense
of belonging to the Honor
System–then it is
malfunctioning.

The spirit of the Honor
System, once so inspiring and
virtuous, has been tarnished.
Granted, with expansion,
certain administrative problems
have arisen. Yet, solutions like
the vouching system or the
wall erected between the
Contract and Open Square
cafeterias can not be
considered favorable solutions.

In these instances student
privileges, as accorded under
the Honor System, have been
abused for the sake of
efficiency. Let us start to abuse
some efficiency to develop
workable alternatives which do
not infringe upon the Honor
System. Unless the Honor
Committee takes a more affirmative
and assertive role, the positive effects of the Honor System will
become remote in a swirl of changes on the Grounds and in the
community.

We believe that the ideals which inspired the System's
institution reside in us as they did in the student body who
instituted that System in 1842. The Honor Code was intended to
cultivate a sense of honor and community at this University. That
Honor Code should still provide tangible benefits for students
while protecting them from infringements of those benefits.

In offering our candidacy, we also offer the ability to adjust
the Honor System to the present University. We should not fear
things that have not been tried before. Our platform is designed
to foster a positive and rejuvenated Honor System working to
protect students' privileges; There is danger in allowing the
Honor Committee to devote itself to the role of a paternal
disciplinarian.

For these reasons we have formulated the following platform:

1. We propose to make merchants aware that just as they are
protected by our Honor System, so they should reciprocate by
extending to the students the simple check-cashing privileges
which they deserve.

2. We propose a "hot-line" which will serve as a line of direct
access from the students to the Honor Committee members. It
will be designed to inform the Honor Committee of instances
where students are not accorded the privileges granted to them by
the Honor System and to allow the Honor Committee to be
aware of student opinion. We admonish those who label as
"gimmicks" the tools which will increase the interaction and
communication between the students and their representatives on
the Honor Committee.

3. We propose a mock Honor trial to familiarize students with
the procedural aspects of an Honor trial.

4. We propose more effective use of all communicative
facilities: The Cavalier Daily, the radios, and the mail.

5. We propose increased orientation and interaction between
the Honor Committee and the students–first-year, upperclass,
graduate and transfer, with special emphasis on the upper-class
students living off-Grounds. We also recognize the need for a
more effective orientation of the faculty members.

6. Finally, we propose a student referendum. This referendum
will have a University-wide response because it will work in
conjunction with the spring pre-registration process. It will deal
largely with the scope of issues of the Honor System in an
attempt to obtain an accurate reflection of student consensus.
This was not proposed on impulse. Our proposal has been
discussed and approved by various experts at the University.

Contrary to our opponents' charges that our proposal for this
referendum would take from two to three years to institute, we
submit that time is not the issue; the only issue is having the
ability to compose good, solid questions.

Our proposals are intended to make the Honor System more
beneficial for the students. Dismissing a peer is not the rationale
for the Honor System, but simply the price that the we must pay
for having that System. The offices of President and
Vice-President of the College do not require personable faces, but
representatives sensitive to student opinion and competent in
administering the Honor System in aspects other than the Honor
trials.