Page 2 University Daily Kansan Tuesday, March 15, 1955
The Honor System Is Not All Bad-
What is all this about police states, spy rings, and McCarthyism? The Kansan Editorial Board seems on the verge of a fear campaign directed against the honor system.
If the proposed honor system is a draft of such subversive ideas then 65 colleges and universities, all belonging to the National Student association, right in the heart of this democratic country are surviving under a similar if not the same type of honor system.
Think of the purges that must have taken place at these institutions, the police systems that must have been organized for the sake of honor, and the untold number of students that have forfeited a higher education for a breech of honor.
Now really—has anything such as this come to pass at these schools? I doubt it.
I expect these students go to classes, take examinations, attend parties, drink beer, play cards, and do it without the fear that Big Brother is watching them.
The only difference between such a student and one that walks this campus is that what they have accomplished was their own—and that they did it on their honor without over-the-shoulder supervision. There were no rules except those engraved on their conscience.
Frankly, I think the fear of the honor system is not of the system itself but of the responsibility it entails.
Man likes his conscience in black and white with the penalties for infraction in degrees according to the seriousness of the violation. Relying strictly on such an intangible substance like honor would be too great a strain for many.
The penalty for honor is too harsh, you say. Honor, friend, is of the conscience and the conscience is of God. One can be refused a place in heaven for lying as well as murder.
But the system proposed by the UVO does not read that way. It says, "penalties up to and including dishonorable dismissal." I think that any group of students such as those elected to an honor committee would be very cautious about imposing the extreme penalty.
The proposed honor system is not a charter for a police state as some very badly frightened people seem to think. It is written almost in whole of a system in effect at a major university, the University of Virginia.
The Kansan Editorial Board states that it is in favor of an honor system, but not the one proposed by the UVO. If not this one—then what one? I think that they will find on closer examination that all honor systems follow the same basic pattern.
I think the Virginians might be a bit angry if they knew that the system they have been living under since the founding of their college has received a subversive smear.
Honor is an affair of personal conscience, and of the consciences with which it must live. If a breach of honor is reported, the accused can appeal to a jury of his peers. Now what is so damned undemocratic about that?
It might do well for all those who hold a copy of the honor system to read it a little more closely. It seems that everybody has just read to the word "investigation" and then raised the hue cry of RED! —Dee Richards
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"I thing th' trouble with most of our freshmen is that th' high schools just aren't teaching them to read."
Editor's note: We have a letter dated March 10 from a person who signs himself as "Nelson Kramer." In the signature, he claims to be a graduate student. After checking with both the Registrar's office and the Graduate school, we can confirm that Nelson Kramer"s enrolled at the University. Therefore, we cannot print "Mr. Kramer's" letter until we have proof that such an individual exists.
Letters
Everything must have a beginning.
An honor system for the University of Kansas had its beginning after a questionable election on the Hill. Someone not only had the ability to realize that all was not open and above board on the Hill but also to do something about the situation.
The fault does not lie in honor but rather in the almighty "A."
Some people would rather attempt to gain good grades in a dishonest manner than face the rest of society as a mediocre student. Grading systems are hard to change, and so a proposal to call upon each student to be fair and honest in his or her dealings on the Hill was set down in cold, hard words.
So far the persons who are most against the system have not come up with an alternate proposal that will be acceptable. Instead of complaining to your friends, why not take the time and jot down any ideas that seem to be workable and send them to the UVO office. The committee, I know, is open for constructive ideas.
To those persons who offer their sympathy to UVO members for the actions of our committee—keep them, I, for one, am damn proud to be associated with an organization willing to do something on the Hill.
Donald E. Roeder Member — University (not "United," as you so often write) Veterans' Organization Engineering occupants
Engineering sophomore
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas Student Newspaper News Room, KU 251 Ad Room, KU 378 Member of the Inland Daily Press association. Associated Collegiate Press association Represented by the National Ad Council Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $4.50 a year (add $1 a semester if in Lawrence. Published at Lawrence University year except Saturdays and Sundays. University holidays and examination periods. Entered as second class student. Entrated as second class student. Kan. post office under act of May 1945.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editorial Editor ... Gene Shank
Ed. Assistants: Elizabeth Wolghumet.
NEWS STAFF
man. Editors: Amy DyeYong, Ron Gron-Man, Karen Hilmert, Jack Lindberg
News Editor         Nancy Neville
Assist. Editor      Lee Ann Urban
Sports Editor       Sam Haiman
Wire Editor         Tom Lyons
 Society Editor      Mary Bess Stephens
Feature Editor      Irene Cooner
Feature Editor      Taylor
News Advisor        C. M. Taylor
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Mgr. Audrey Holmes
Advertising Mgr. Martha Chambers
Nat. Adv. Mgr. Leonard Juren
Cir. Mgr. Georgia Wallace
Classified Mgr. James Cazier
Business Adviser Gene Bratton
But Even One Good Part Isn't Enough
In the first place, at no time has the Editorial Board stated that it is in favor of an honor system. We have stated that we are not opposed to an honor system at this time. There is a great deal of difference in the wording used by the Editorial Board and the working attributed to the Editorial Board by Mr. Richards. If—and it's a large "IF"—an honor system can be presented which is acceptable to the student body and is workable, then the Editorial Board has no complaints. But we have yet to see such a system. In his editorial, Mr. Richards asks the logical question: "If a breach of honor is reported, the accused can appeal to a jury of his peers. Now what is so damned undemocratic about that?"
On the surface, nothing is undemocratic about it. But, in fact, it still is not clear to us as to who has the burden of proof, the accusers or the accused. And, until this point is clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Editorial Board must take the words of the proposed system at their face value. And, by doing this, the accused doesn't have the chance of the proverbial snowball of surviving the charge. Further, even if the burden of proof does rest with the accusers, how is the accused to prove in his single testimony that the charges brought forth by two or more persons are false? He simply can't do it.
It is pointed out that an honor system similar to the one proposed for KU is working in 65 colleges and universities.
Is it? Merely because an honor system is being used doesn't mean it's working. As a matter of fact, doesn't it depend primarily on the force of the sanctions connected with an honor system to determine whether or not said system is working?
Without strong sanctions an honor system is nothing more than a piece of paper. Bring in your arguments for pride and personal integrity and still you have the same situation. Furthermore, since when is an honor system going to change a person's personal feelings—be they pro or con—concerning honor?
As a matter of fact, Mr. Richards goes pretty far in defeating his own case when he says "... they did it on their honor without the over-the-shoulder supervision. There were no rules except those engraved on their consciences."
If there is no "over-the-shoulder" (that's a nice, catchy phrase) supervision and if the only rules are those "engraved on their consciences" (that's another good one), then why do they have an honor system at all?
On another point, Mr. Richards seems to say that the Editorial Board is trying to keep people out of heaven—or something like that. Without going into a discussion concerning heaven, we merely state again that we are not against honor. Neither are we against the flag, nor brotherhood, nor the Boy Scouts, nor helping old ladies across streets. We would like to know where Mr. Richards gets all his knowledge of heaven and how to and how not to get there.
But getting back to earth for a moment; Mr. Richards says that he thinks that any group of students elected to an honor committee would "be very cautious" about imposing a penalty of dishonorable dismissal from the University on any student who is found guilty of a breach of honor. But what other penalties are there? The proposed system does not say specifically that there are others. It merely says, to re-quote Mr. Richards, "... penalties up to and including dishonorable dismissal." That's pretty vague.
And, really, we're not in the midst of a fear campaign.
We merely want the students to know the facts behind the proposed honor system. The final decision rests with them.
Don't try to convince us. We're convinced that the proposed honor system is bad. If you think it possible, then convince the student body that it's a good system. We repeat that we'll be glad to print any effort along these lines.
-John Herrington