University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Council Vote Delay 'Foolish Mistake'

By KEVIN MANNIX

Student Council, in voting to
postpone the Honor Committee
election and referendum, has
made a foolish mistake.

The merits of the Honor
Committee letter which
students received on Wednesday
might be questioned on several
grounds, but the postponement
of the election merely
compounded error with further
error. The Honor Committee
should not, in my mind, have
sent out a letter signed "The
Honor Committee" without
having called a meeting of the
entire committee to approve the
letter, even if the letter
represented the sentiments of a
majority of the Committee
members.

However, there is no
question as to the Committee's
"right" to mail whatever
material it pleases to students if
it can receive non-University
funding, which apparently was
the case here. The collusion of
the Office of Student Affairs in
this matter, however, is
reprehensible to the extent that
the Honor Referendum is a
debate among students.
The Honor Committee should
have had to go directly to its
source of funds rather than have
D. Alan Williams act as a
go-between.

Yet this does not pertain to
the election itself. Whether one
approves of the Honor
Committee letter (and its
content) or not, the Committee
violated no election rule
whatsoever in sending out its
letter, as it has a right to contact
students via its mailing
machinery. Whether it should
have, as an ethical question, is a
separate from the question of
whether it can do so.

The Student Council, in
postponing the elections at this
late date, has put individual
candidates in a difficult
position. Campaigns, as any
good politician knows, are
"timed" to "peak" just at
election time. The interest
developed among students
should be at a peak right now,
and a "moratorium" on
campaigning is not going to
freeze that interest. A turn-out
for a postponed election will be
lower than it would have been
this week. People can take just
so much campaigning before
they get bored by it all.

Yet the candidates are not
the only ones who will suffer.
Discussion of the
issues-although not very clear
discussion, in my mind-has also
reached its peak, and the
referendum turn-out should
also suffer. Finally, the
over-taxed elections committee
must gear up its machinery all
over again.

Of course, these practical
considerations would be minor
in relation to a major violation
of elections procedures. Yet no
violation of the rules has
occurred, unless one is to read
the rules as stating that the
Honor Committee cannot use
its own machinery to inform
students of its position-and
even then one must remember
that the Honor Committee is
not subject to Student Council
rules.

The Student Council vote to
postpone the elections because
of the Honor Committee letter
appears to be an attempt to
"punish" the Committee for
having sent the letter out. I do
not believe that the letter would
have affected the election
returns, considering the amount
of publicity that has gone out
on the matter.

Yet even if it would affect
the returns, there is no rule to
govern a last-minute letter.
Candidates usually have a
last-night letter or poster they
put up. Part of campaign
planning includes trying to
anticipate the last-minute
moves of the opposition.

In trying to "punish" the
Honor Committee, the Council
has punished the candidates and
has hurt the referendum itself.
If anything, I think the Honor
Committee letter tended to hurt
the cause of the Committee
because many students were
offended by it.

Yet the true question
remains: what right does the
Student Council have to
postpone an election because
they think one party or another
has legally gained an "unfair"
advantage? The politicos on
Council know what
campaigning is all about.
Ethically, one may question the
Honor Committee's action, but
legally one cannot.