The Honor System is at a Crossroads

The Honor System is at a Crossroads

Students and faculty must do the hard work of recommitting themselves to the Honor System.

(The path radiating campus of W&L requires more work to travel than that of a cookie-cutter office. | SOURCE: ChatGPT)

The Honor System was a highlight of my experience at Washington and Lee University. Our Honor System holds the community to a high standard of integrity across all aspects of student life, including, most memorably to me, academics.

Completing assignments according to the Honor System, knowing that all of my work was my own, gave me a sense of accomplishment. I felt respected by professors when they gave me closed-note tests to take on my own time or when they trusted that I worked honorably with my peers on group projects. 

Opportunities like these to demonstrate my honor have fostered not only a deeper understanding of my classes but also a serious commitment to my word. This commitment to honesty is one that W&L students have upheld not only in their academics but also throughout extracurriculars and professional experiences for decades.

Over the past few years, however, skepticism surrounding the use of artificial intelligence and shifting views on the role and importance of honor have threatened W&L’s values. These risks should be addressed thoughtfully by students and faculty before the Honor System is irreparably dismantled.

Students are becoming increasingly hesitant to report Honor Violations. During conversations with current students and recent graduates, I have heard many reasons why students will not report potential Honor Violations. These include social pressure, lack of sufficient evidence, and murky definitions of academic dishonesty. 

A recent graduate who worked significantly with the Honor System during their time at W&L shared with me that “even just a few years ago, there were significantly more reports every year to the Executive Committee (EC) than there have been recently. There is something different about now and then.” 

The decline in reports of violations of the Honor System could be the result of an increasingly honest student body and a growing commitment to the Honor System. Unfortunately, there are many recent stories of students witnessing what seemed like academic dishonesty and failing to report it. Both the student I talked to and I were guilty of this on separate occasions. 

Instead of more honorable students, it seems more likely that W&L students are unwilling to uphold the commitment of the Honor System in the same way that even students of a decade ago were.

Inconsistent definitions of “violating the community’s trust,” the generalized description of any action contrary to the Honor System, show potential systemic issues as well. The EC and some faculty appear to hold diverging views on what constitutes a “Violation,” reducing many professors’ faith in the Honor System over the last few years. 

A Williams School professor I talked to shared that “the faculty in my department don’t trust the Honor System anymore. The student-run system has made decisions that some professors don’t really understand or agree with, so we feel forced to more closely proctor exams and move assessments onto paper to lower the risk of academic dishonesty.”

With fewer students willing to report Honor Violations and situations that do not yield what some faculty consider fair results, professors are forced to make a difficult choice. They can have faith in their students, but doing so may put their reputation or class curves at risk. If they are too skeptical, they can reduce opportunities for dishonorable conduct through measures like proctored exams. Many have chosen the latter, transitioning previously virtual essays onto paper and moving formerly self-scheduled exams into the classroom. 

A community built on honor breaks down without opportunities to demonstrate it and consistent accountability from those who uphold it. By depriving students of opportunities to demonstrate their honor, W&L fails to uphold its mission to “develop students’ capacity … to conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and civility.” At our current crossroads, students and faculty must both commit to trusting students and embracing the body that governs them. 

Not to say recommitting to the Honor System will be easy; our current position emphasizes the difficulty. I doubt many students would be willing to put themselves in a position where they have to look a peer in the eye during an honor hearing or be known as a snitch; I wasn’t. Restoring the Honor System requires the destigmatization of reporting potential Honor Violations, as well as more open conversations among students about it. 

Students should pay careful attention to EC candidates’ beliefs on the Honor System, to elect representatives who will reflect the most broadly “representative” definition of the community’s trust. The EC may consider releasing end-of-semester guidance to disclose types of situations they did or did not find to violate the community’s trust. This openness could better describe the boundaries of the Honor System and move our community towards reembracing it. 

Professors should, within reason, provide opportunities for students to exhibit honorable behavior and share with them how and why they do so. Students should understand what is expected of them by their professors and by their university when self-grading their work or taking home an exam (including the consequences to themselves and to the university based on their decision). Any suspected breach of the community’s trust must be reported to the EC to develop the virtues of integrity to which we, as members of the W&L community, are committed. 

If the gravity of the single sanction significantly reduces reporting, it is more crucial to preserve the system's purpose than the punishments we have in place to enforce it. Student input has the power to reshape the Honor System and its enforcement, through both the election of new EC members and actions of the White Book Review Committee.

The difficulty of maintaining high standards of honor at W&L is part of what makes it so rewarding. I’m certain that we are up to the challenge.

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the authors’ own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.