LETTERS

If you'd like to comment on our magazine or a particular topic we've covered, please send a letter to the editor at  uvamag@virginia.edu. We'll try to publish it. The editor reserves the right to edit letters for style and content. You can also contact us via mail or fax at: U.Va. Magazine, P.O. Box 3446, Charlottesville, VA 22903 or (434) 243-9085.

Roseberry’s Photos

My brother, Michael Willner, is on the cover of the spring 2006 magazine. My family is delighted to see this wonderful picture of Michael. He was a 1965 graduate of the School of Commerce and the Law School (1968). The photo captures the essence of my brother, who knew how to savor life and was a very funny person. He died in 1981 of a rare liver disease, while waiting for a donor liver. The Honor System was practically a religion to him. I am very thankful to have this wonderful remembrance of him.
Nancy Ellen Willner (Col’73)
Charlottesville, Va.

Imagine my shock, which morphed into delight, when I got my mail and saw the cover of the spring 2006 edition. The young man in the photo (in the trunk of the Corvair) is Michael Willner, who I met in my first year at U.Va. and who remained my closest friend until his untimely death.

I also was thrilled to see the picture of Ms. Betts, whom I was honored to know during my service in the Virginia Guide Service. I read the magazine religiously, not only to keep up with what is going on at the University but also for the serendipitous return trips to my wonderful seven years in Charlottesville. Thanks for the memories.
Don Zachary (Col’65, Law ’68)
Glendale, Calif.

Really enjoyed the Ed Roseberry photos. I passed them on to some of my friends and fraternity brothers (Beta Theta Pi). Those photos took me back to the “good old days” when after the big weekends we would all go to Mincer’s Pipe Shop to see the latest photos.
LoganBrown (Col’69)
Houston, Texas

Thank you for publishing the wonderful photograph by Ed Roseberry of Dr. Janet Meade in your spring issue. In 1956-1957, my husband, a law student, and I lived on Jefferson Park Ave. and Dr. Meade lived across the street. A more delightful neighbor (as your photograph certainly indicates!) couldn’t possibly be found.

She was very proud of being the first woman to receive a Ph.D. from the University—and she was almost as proud of owning a 1929 Encyclopedia Britannica. In 1956 or ’57, an “attractive young man” convinced her to update to a current Britannica. After owning it for less than a day, she asked him to take it back—in only a half hour she said that she found three errors!

Thank you for some lovely memories.
Sara M. Porter
Brunswick, Maine

Honor Under Fire

I was saddened by the article “Restoring Honor: Perspectives on an imperiled institution in a changing world” (spring 2006). Most distressing were comments interspersed among the published perspectives on the imperiled code: that “cheating is almost always tolerated”; that the code’s “aim is not to purge the student body of those who lie, cheat or steal”; that someone observing an honor violation could find it immoral “to meddle with anybody else’s destiny.”

I confess that as a Northerner confronting the code in 1965, I found the late Dean Woody’s lecture on honor somewhat overblown. I quickly came to fear and distrust the code when strangers knocked on my door to announce, with evident enthusiasm, that they were reporting someone they had seen copying from one of my test papers. I witnessed a charming, highly intelligent student permanently expelled for what might have been at most an instant of weakness. Throughout my years at Virginia, I saw the code not as a treasure, but as an overhanging sword, one threatening destruction were I to lie, cheat or steal.

Only after leaving Grounds did I come to appreciate what the code had wrought. In my first year at a distinguished law school, my class had to share library resources for an independent research assignment. Some of my peers hid volumes for themselves, even tore out pages, to gain an edge. Many collaborated, although individual effort was demanded. And, of course, many lied about what they had done. Yet no one seemed surprised or seemed to care. From that moment on, I have felt the acute loss of a community committed to honor.

Dean Woody, you had it right. Honor is like virginity: you either have it or you don’t. Virginia students must be honorable enough to report violations. And the Honor Committee must be honorable enough to keep the faith, to purge from the Virginia community those who cannot, even for the short space of their educations, fully abide by a code to which they subjected themselves.
Donald B. Lewis (Col’69)
Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

At birth, each person is given only two things in portions that are precisely equal to those given to every other member of the society: time and integrity. Each of these is eminently valuable to the holder, in that they can only be diminished and never be replenished.

Our integrity—let us call it “honor”—however flawless it may be, has only the value others see it to be. In the absence of direct relationships, one may measure the honor of another by the company the other keeps—let us say the university attended.

Since the first thoughts were recorded, it has been fashionable to rethink these thoughts. So it is with what we think the University’s Honor System should be. Given the thoughts above to be true—and they are—finding the honor of any student to be diminished and allowing that student to remain at the University serves to diminish the honor of all students, past, present and future.

If these thoughts are rational, then, to protect the honor of us all, the only Honor System punishment must be expulsion.
James H. Hill III (Engr ’58)
Simsbury, Conn.

Let us be clear what the Honor System is trying to achieve: no more than a code of conduct that should be universally upheld anyway.

I grant that the single-sanction system may dissuade reporting of malfeasance, and in an unintended manner “allow” cheating to go on. But is this enough to dilute the system? Some correspondents suggest expulsion with a door open to readmission—in effect allowing a graduated treatment of offenses. The recent open trial seems to indicate a willingness to accept a graduated treatment and thus hollow out the single-sanction system. However, what is perhaps most disturbing is the apparent abdication of responsibility by the students to enforce the Honor System and letting “it was only a little bit of cheating” stand in the way of higher principles.

By dropping the single-sanction system, the moral foundation of the University would shift to admit that some cheating is OK, whilst other kinds are not. How can we build an institution like that?
Peer Nielsen (GSBA ’83)
Beijing, China

As a former student who had to make one of the most difficult decisions of my life to turn in a fellow student for cheating on a final, I understand better than most the consequences of my actions and the effect those actions had on another individual. However, these personal considerations are not of ultimate importance. What is of ultimate importance is the integrity of the institution and that for which it stands. By not acting consistently with its own rules, the Honor Committee has: one, impugned the character and honor of the student or students who brought forth the allegations, which were subsequently proven to be true; two, sent the message to both the cheater and to the rest of the community that morally ethical behavior is determined not by adherence to the rules, but by that which you can get away with; and three, sent a message to the broader world at large that the University of Virginia is not an honorable institution but will condone intellectual dishonesty in its academic pursuits.
Kris Allen (Engr ’72)
Virginia Beach, Va.

In the open honor trial to which Mr. Allen and other letter writers refer, the accused students were acquitted by a jury of 10 randomly selected students, not the Honor Committee. —Ed.

During my quarter century of “professing” (Northwestern, William and Mary) to graduate students under porous, ambiguous honor codes, countless cheaters were encountered. All were writing offenses (from deliberate failure to cite references properly to overt plagiarism). On written projects, professors must be involved. Who else will report?

Your insightful article and selected responses will ensure that protecting, improving and preserving an intrinsic U.Va. legacy continues. “Honor above all!”
Bob Maidment (Educ ’50, ’53, ’63)
Boca Raton, Fla.

Thank you for the lead-in warning on the honor code feature. You were right—it did upset me. Middle age does bring with it an assortment of various maladies, but I don’t think I suffer with “the handicap of blind commitment to tradition,” in the words of one of the contributing essayists. Actually, I think I benefit from the reasoned, considered, tempered, honored and time-tested commitment to tradition.

I continue to wrestle with the complexities of the modern University and its issues. It does appear that the welcoming, inclusive, nonjudgmental, diverse University has provided safe harbor to those who choose to overlook, ignore or forgive the violations of the core values of (what once was) the University community. We older alumni consider those values a “fundamental cornerstone of the University of Virginia,” as another essayist wrote, but it appears that younger, and future, alumni see them as causations for lying, cheating and stealing, economic penalties for parents and career debilitations for students and impositions on moral values. I echo the call for the administration and the Board of Visitors to address these significant disconnects of expectations of a University education, not only for the current student population, but for the future of the institution.
Gene Kidwell (Col’68, Educ ’71)
Culpeper, Va.

Of all the positive influences in my life, none have had greater effect than the Honor System at the University. I was personally involved with the expulsion of a fraternity brother guilty of stealing. A roommate and best friend was acquitted on charges of cheating. The system worked there and can work today in its simplistic form.

The deterioration of moral and ethical conduct in this country today is appalling. Obviously, it is having its effect on the Honor System. To excuse cheating on a homework assignment, stealing a one-dollar bill from a person’s bureau, or lying regarding a personal matter should continue to have serious consequences. If the Honor System is not restored, or continued, one might say years from now, “The University was once a great school. It no longer is!”

The article “Restoring Honor” is simply trying to justify the easy way out of a great institution by students who dislike discipline and the administration.
William H. Wood III (Col’54)
Hobe Sound, Fla.

Messing with the Honor System is like rewriting the Ten Commandments: sacrilege, an attempt to have equivocation replace dedication.

If students cannot commit to the Honor Code, they belong elsewhere and do not understand its positive impact on their future.
Henry H. Gilbert (Col’67)
Summit, N.J.

A panel that would find a student guilty of cheating but finds them not guilty, rather than apply the single sanction, should be removed from the process. This is a manifest disregard of the code.

What are the degrees of cheating? Do you really believe that a person who will cheat makes this distinction? A cheat is a cheat. A person who cheats at golf invariably will cheat in business. People don’t selectively cheat. Why do you want a cheater (regardless of the degree of cheating) to remain at U.Va.?

I would reluctantly accept a change that would allow a person convicted and dismissed from U.Va. to reapply showing how they have rehabilitated themselves. This admission decision should be handled by admission committees that decide who gets in school initially.
Roy C. Young (Law ’66)
Tallahassee, Fla.

If today’s culture recognizes “nonserious” types of academic cheating, the Honor System is indeed in deep trouble.

I think that Mr. Haidt’s and Mr. Middleditch’s idea of expulsion rather than dismissal as the initial sanction merits consideration. Perhaps the faculty needs to be more actively involved, as Professor Bloomfield has been. I believe that a mandatory course in honor should be a requirement for an academic degree.

If the Honor System is to be preserved in anything but name only, reform appears to be necessary and soon. I urge the president and Board of Visitors to give a high priority to this matter.
James D. Mason Jr. (Col’48, Med ’51)
Petersburg, Va.

When I entered the University, virtually the first principle presented to me was that there are no degrees of honor; that a small lie and a large lie are indistinguishable. Exams were not proctored, doors were not locked, books could be left without fear of them departing. I have carried that freedom into my professional and personal life to similar advantages.

Convicting an accused offender but not imposing the sanction guts the core value of any meaning. It is to attempt to parse the gray, which in and of itself negates the underlying thought that there are no degrees of honor.

But alas, I am long past my student days. It is for current and future students to assess and weigh the consequences of change they contemplate. The status quo cannot stand. If they cannot stand a single sanction, then they need to be honorable enough to make a forthright statement to that effect and change the system accordingly.
Robert Fagin (Col’70)
Jacksonville, Fla.

In 1984, a somewhat unsuspecting student from “Down Under” received the call to join a student jury hearing a case regarding stealing at U.Va. The case was clear. The single sanction was applied.

Being on the jury and applying the sanction had a deep impact on me. I agreed with the Honor System, and believe in the single sanction. But I came away with concern and even confusion, feeling a divide between what had occurred and suddenly rekindled memories of childhood teachings on forgiveness. Justice had been done, but something was lacking in the system. I grappled with this for some time, until years later I received forgiveness. That changed my life and confirmed another childhood teaching: “Mercy triumphs over justice.”

I therefore endorse the contribution by Jonathan Haidt. I believe that forgiveness can be built into the Honor System, and that an inspired incorporation of forgiveness will help rejuvenate and enhance the student-run, single-sanction Honor System that deserves to remain at the core of life at U.Va.
Tony Scammell (GSBA ’85)
Adelaide, Australia

You state “Current Honor Committee chairman David Hobbs says a multiple-sanction proposal will appear on a ballot either this spring or fall.” The term “chairman,” I believe, is inaccurate. Though I doubt Meghan Sullivan was the first female head of the Honor Committee, she was referred to as “Honor Committee Chair,” as is Hobbs. I believe the official title has been changed in an effort by the Honor Committee to distance itself from the stereotype of being an all-white, all-male organization.
Eric Cunningham (Col’06)
Charlottesville, Va.

Thank You to Students

The spring issue included a little piece about Ryan Fleenor and his fellow students helping people whose lives were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Among all of the divisive issues that seem to be an inevitable part of modern campuses, here are students going about the task of being simply decent. Thanks to Ryan and his fellow students for showing us how it should be done.
Matthew Schwartz (Col’80)
Bridgewater, NJ

Fraternity Clarification

I would like to clear up a point made in the article, “Tom Faulders Succeeds Jack Syer as Alumni Association President.” The article states Faulders is “a member of Phi Delta Theta (now Phi Society).” This statement implies that Phi Delta Theta ceases to exist at U.Va.

After the group currently known as Phi Society lost the Phi Delta Theta charter in 2000, they subsequently established themselves as a local fraternity, which is known as the Phi Society.  Phi Delt General Headquarters started a new colony that was rechartered in 2001.

It is important to correctly report to parents and alumni that Phi Delta Theta is not only in existence, but thriving at the University of Virginia.
Layton Hill (Col’07)
Charlottesville, Va.

Disappointed in Jagger Cover

The alumni magazine should emphasize the academic quality and activities of the University, and stop being “all things to all people.”

I was thoroughly insulted by the placement of the picture of Mick Jagger on the cover of the winter 2005 issue. Is this [person] the model for U.Va. students? Your cover picture was in poor taste and an insult to the Jeffersonian principles of the University of Virginia. Please don’t repeat this type of fiasco again.
Maurice Fisher (Grad ’71)
Manassas, Va.

Driving the Bus

John Hiltz in 1975 at the Scott Stadium bus stop

As soon as I arrived on Grounds the following September, I applied for the job of driving a bus. I was quickly accepted and went through training. My fellow drivers were my friends, my fraternity and my support group. I am not sure I would have survived academically otherwise.

I stayed in the bus industry for the next 12 years as a driver and supervisor. I also returned to U.Va., earning an M.Ed. through the Northern Virginia Extension in 2000, and am currently working on completing a doctorate in education. However, I still think of myself as the guy who came to U.Va. to drive buses—which turned out to be the best decision I ever made.
John R. Hiltz (Educ ’77, ’00)
Arlington, Va.

A Letter About Letters

I received and read, almost cover to cover, the spring 2006 issue of the University of Virginia Magazine. Being a former member of the Board of Managers, and having chaired the committee dealing with the old Alumni News, and having worked many years with [former editor] Bill Sublette, I wish to congratulate you on a great new effort, and a wonderful start. When I was on the Publications Committee, we first began taking letters to the editor. The ones published in the spring issue show why this practice is so important—it gives a medium for expression about University affairs to all who have a U.Va. connection.

Thanks again for a good magazine!
Henry Bowden (Col’71)
Atlanta, Ga.

Another View on Debate

Barbara Ellen Spencer’s letter voicing displeasure with the decision to publish a gay adoption announcement has evoked a predictable bleating of indignation. While I share the distaste of censorship expressed by most of the respondents, I was disappointed by their largely monolithic perspective that to question the prerogatives of the gay community is tantamount to bigotry.

In the spirit of free expression, I would disagree with Ms. Spencer that publishing a factual occurrence in modern society equates to promotion of an alternative agenda. I would also contend that if one takes issue with a current practice in modern society, one ought to lodge a thoughtful basis for one’s objection and not simply seek to suppress public acknowledgment of the practice. On these points, I find myself in agreement with the herd of respondents.

What I am not convinced of, however, are the thinly veiled premises underpinning the position of many of the respondents, namely: 1) traditional nuclear families are not preferable to alternative modern arrangements from the standpoint of children’s well-being, 2) child rearing is somehow an inalienable right of homosexuals, 3) that anyone who disagrees with these premises is a de facto bigot.

Partisan social science on either side notwithstanding, I believe that it would be difficult to argue, in an intellectually honest manner, that modern society’s increasingly violent, vulgar and morally confused trajectory is moving in the right direction. Though many factors likely play into this trend, the decline of the traditional nuclear family and the stable and balanced environment it provides for developing children is almost certainly a key factor. It is on this basis that I believe society has an obligation to promote traditional nuclear families in preference to more modern alternatives, both gay and straight.

Jefferson wrote that the inalienable nature of certain fundamental rights derives from their endowment to us by our Creator. Thus, it would seem that any ambiguity about the right to child rearing could have been resolved at the original endowment by a slight adjustment in the scope of the procreative process. This tongue-in-cheek salvo should not be misconstrued to imply that I believe our political foundations somehow preclude homosexual adoptions; I do not. What I do believe is that child rearing is not an inalienable right for homosexuals, and as such, determination of its appropriateness as a matter of public policy is within the purview of the legislative process.

Finally, I refuse to accept a simplistic framing of the issue in the hate/love/bigotry/phobia terms of political correctness. My position does not stem from an ignorant impulse to mindlessly antagonize homosexuals who likely contribute positively to many other aspects of public and private life. Rather I believe that there is a thoughtful basis for finding alternative child-rearing arrangements undesirable; namely, that they are, in general, not in the best interests of children. Others may disagree with this position and be able to articulate reasonable counterarguments. Let the ensuing debate be conducted in an open and civil manner free from the accusatory rhetoric and artificial constraints of political correctness.
Thomas D. Burns Jr. (Engr ’95, ’98)
Alexandria, Va.

To view previous letters on this particular subject, visit www.uvamagazine.org/spring06letters.

return to top >