University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'The People' Illuminate Campaign Platform

Don't let The Cavalier Daily
blind you to the truth about
the platform of THE PEOPLE.
Despite the article on the
presidential and
vice-presidential candidates of
THE PEOPLE, Leslie Joffa and
am Slater, published in The
Cavalier Daily on Tuesday,
March 21, our platform is
neither as simple nor ridiculous
as The Cavalier Daily would
make it seem.

We need a dual penalty
system. THE PEOPLE propose
as alternative penalty to
expulsion in cases where the
each is neither premeditated
in gross misuse of the
system. That is, students are
being sentenced unjustly under
the single sanction system. We
object to the Honor
Committee's judging a violator
the basis of the act alone.
We feel that intention must be
analyzed in order to give an
individual a fair trial and just
sentence. Admittedly, the act
of cheating, under any
circumstances, is a breach of
the Honor Code. However, we
don't believe it is fair for
individuals with different
intentions to be treated the
me.

Consider an individual who
brings a cheat sheet into an
exam; this is an obvious case of
premeditated cheating. His
purposeful act warrants
expulsion. Consider the
individual who, completely out
of character, cheats on a test
because he panics when he sees
that he doesn't know the
answers and feels for some
reason that he must pass it.
Isn't there a difference? We
would not expel the student
who didn't plan to cheat.
People do have their
weaknesses and a dual penalty
honor system would account
for the element of human
nature involved.

How do you judge
border-line cases when the
intention of the case is hard to
determine? Of course,
border-line cases will arise. The
"machine" will not be as
efficient; sentences won't be
easy to pass, when judges have
a choice of sanctions. But what
about the obvious cases? Many
of us agree that students do
not warrant expulsion for
stealing a quart of paint or
cheating out of panic.
Shouldn't the Honor System
protect those individuals who
are obviously treated unfairly
under the single sanction
system? Although problems
will arise in border-line cases,
the dual sanction system is
necessary to protect the
individuals whose act is clearly
non-premeditated or minor.

We support the alternative
penalty proposed by Nick
Davidson in the referendum;
that is, a student who commits
an act that is neither in gross
misuse of the system nor
premeditated, should be
suspended for the semester of
his trial and the following
semester. Our attitude was
misrepresented in The Cavalier
Daily article. However, if the
students indicate their support
of an alternative sanction
system, we would, if elected,
allow the students to decide
the nature of the alternative. It
is the student body's honor
system, and this Honor
Committee shouldn't hesitate
to respond to the students'
demands.

It would seem from The
Cavalier Daily article that
Leslie Joffa and Pam Slater, as
representatives of THE
PEOPLE, want to weaken the
Honor System. Nothing could
be more false or absurd! The
alternative sanction will
strengthen the Honor System,
because many students who
wouldn't have reported honor
offenses under the single
sanction system would be more
inclined to do so under the
dual sanction system. It has
become clear to us in
discussing our platform with
other students that 99 per cent
of the people who support us
also support a strong Honor
System. We feel as they do,
that the suggested alternative
of suspension for a maximum
of two semesters is severe
enough that students wouldn't
go on a rampage of lying,
cheating, and stealing because
the penalty was so 'lenient'.
Two semesters is a big part of a
person's life.

Our inflexible system is
unfair. We urge you to face the
fact that those who violate the
Honor Code are different, if
not in their crimes, in their
motivations. The system must
be made more flexible to
handle this diversity.

Misrepresentation

In reply to Mr. Stephen M.
Johnson's letter on March 21
concerning the Vanderbilt
Honor System, I would like to
suggest that Mr. Johnson
confine his remarks to his own
personal experiences rather
than condemn the entire
Vanderbilt Honor System
because of the remarks of a few
of his friends.

Statements such as
"Plagiarism is expected and
even condoned" are an outright
misrepresentation. Contrary to
Mr. Johnson's opinion, the
University of Virginia does not
have a patent on a workable
honor code.

I attended Vanderbilt
University for four years; and
from my observations, Mr.
Drew Gardner's article on the
Vanderbilt Honor System is an
accurate account of both the
mechanics and the intent of
Vanderbilt's system.