University of Virginia Library

Election Brouhaha

Student Council's decision Tuesday night to
postpone the Honor Committee elections and
referendum was made - quite wisely - in an
effort to stave off the ill effects of the Honor
Committee's poorly thought letter concerning
its vote against any alternative to the single
sanction. While we strongly question the
content, manner, and timing of the mass
mailing, we urge Student Council to concern
itself tonight with three important
considerations: (1) Was the letter in fact
disadvantageous to any candidate or position?;
(2) If so, what can be done to correct that
situation?; and (3) How soon can the election
and referendum be held fairly?

First, while the Committee claimed that the
letter was intended only as a clarification of its
decision not to change the single sanction, it is
obvious that the letter has had an adverse affect
- although undetermined - on the campaigns
supporting a dual sanction. This is inevitable
for any candidate who favors the dual sanction
stands to be placed at a disadvantage by a
public explanation of the Committee's
decision. It is impossible to determine how
much an effect the letter has had on the
campaign, but it is equally difficult to decide
what steps should be taken to offset that effect.

It is evident that the candidates running on
the "People" ticket, those supporting a dual
sanction system, will not be satisfied unless
they receive an equal opportunity to rebut the
Committee's letter. For example, yesterday
they demanded that they be granted two full
pages in The Cavalier Daily for their response;
they probably will also demand an opportunity
to distribute letters like the Committee's
original.

Neither alternative will prove satisfactory.
While "The People" would be pleased with
such a "compromise," it would in turn prove
disadvantageous to the other candidates in the
elections. Gordon Peerman and Mark Warner
justifiably could demand similar opportunities
to publicize their proposed change in scope and
Bob Verklin, Ted Knetzger and Gaylon
Layfield also could request equal time to
present their platform. And so on.

Turning to the third question, we see little
that can be done to counteract the ill-effects
which stem directly from the Honor
Committee's letter. In the interest of fairness,
the date of the elections and referendum has
been delayed. Council should conduct its
investigation ending the moratorium on
campaigning, then set new dates for the voting.

Interest in the election and referendum
currently is at a high point. As long as all sides
are given a final and equal opportunity to state
their cases, the elections should be conducted
early next week. Too many students will have
left for Spring Break later in the week and
interest will have waned if the balloting is
delayed until the middle of April.

At the very least, the Committee's letter has
tended to undermine the fair conduct of the
election and referendum, if not the credibility
of the Committee and the integrity of the
Honor System itself. Further investigation
ought to reveal the real motives and intentions
behind the letter. However, it is imperative that
Council conduct the elections soon in order to
salvage whatever is possible from the brouhaha
created by the Honor Committee's
ill-conceived tactics.