W&L Faculty Polled on Honor System

W&L Faculty Polled on Honor System

W&L faculty and staff back the Honor System in theory, but differ in their views of it in its current state or potential improvements.

(Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark, at sunrise. | SOURCE: Alex Kagan)

Over recent weeks, the Honor System has been the subject of constant debate among Washington and Lee students. These debates have illuminated stark disagreements among members of the W&L community, with many taking opposing sides on issues such as the Single Sanction, enforcement of the Honor System and more. 

To demonstrate where views on the Honor System overlapped and diverged across different segments of the W&L community, The Spectator recently sent a poll to faculty members seeking their input on the system. The Spectator, W&L faculty, and staff members showed that, like students, they have a wide array of views regarding the Honor System. 

The poll, which was sent to every academic department head, received responses from just under half of the department heads and 45 faculty members in total. The poll was also shared with three deans at the School of Law, none of whom responded. 

The poll’s first question asked faculty and staff about the importance of an honor code to a school’s environment. All respondents answered that some sort of honor code is essential for a university.

This unanimity was not only expressed positively towards the Honor System. Over 90%, 33 out of 35 faculty and staff members who responded to the question “Do you think that the Honor System is weaker or stronger today than when you started working at W&L?” said that the Honor System is weaker. 

(Responses to the question: “Do you think the Honor System is stronger or weaker today than when you started working at W&L?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Yet, this unanimity or near-unanimity quickly faded. When asked to give their opinion on the Honor System as it exists today, 22.2% were highly favorable, while 42.2% were mildly favorable. Despite nearly two-thirds of faculty having a favorable outlook, 13.3% of respondents reported being highly unfavorable, 15.6% were midly unfavorable, and 6.7% were neutral. 

(Responses to the question: “What is your view of the Honor System in its current form?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

When looking at more specific aspects of the Honor System, there was also substantial variation in responses. 

The faculty and staff members’ views on the Single Sanction appeared to be evenly split. Exactly one-half said their view was mildly to highly favorable, while 36.4% said their opinion was mildly to highly unfavorable. The rest, 13.6%, remained neutral on the single sanction.

(Responses to the question: “What is your view of the [S]ingle [S]anction policy?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

When asked about specific problems facing the Honor System today, under-enforcement (71.4%), student non-compliance (50%), and unclear expectations (47.6%) were the top choices. Other faculty and staff were worried about perceived issues like discriminatory enforcement, which 35.7% were worried about, along with lack of transparency (28.6%) and lack of student support (23.8%). Only 4.8% thought the system was over-enforced.

(Responses to the question: “Do you think any of these potential problems face the Honor System today?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

The faculty and staff gave their input on several proposed changes to the Honor System. The proposals with the most support were proportional/tiered punishments for different Honor Violations (47.5%), codifying different tiers of punishment for various kinds of offenses (42.5%) and eliminating the Single Sanction (40%).

One-fourth of those polled supported complete codification of all Honor Violations, while 37.5% supported partial codification. 

Regarding Open Hearings, few supported deciding the defendant's guilt or innocence at an Open Hearing by popular vote (2.5%). Meanwhile, 22.5% supported loosening restrictions on community discussion of Open Hearings, and 15% supported mandating that jurors swear to support the Single Sanction. 

Some supported applying the Honor System to crimes (35%) and two strikes for Honor Violations (12.5%). Support for making students (22.5%) and professors or staff (17.5%) mandatory reporters was fairly low.

(Responses to the question: “Do you think any of these proposed changes would improve the W&L community?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Few faculty or staff supported the elimination of the Honor System (2.5%), hiring professionals to run the Honor System (5%), eliminating the Student Judicial Council (7.5%) or removing law students from the Honor System (10%). 

The vast majority of polled faculty or staff thought that the average W&L student abides by the Honor System, with 90.7% agreeing.

Regarding whether “the Honor System fairly applied to breaches of the community's trust that occur academically and in social/extracurricular life,” the results were much closer.  With fewer responses than most questions, 59.3% believed that it has been fairly applied across the board, while 40.7% argued that the Honor System is overly focused on academic violations.

(Responses to the question: “Is the Honor System fairly applied to breaches of the community's trust that occur academically and in social/extracurricular life?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Regarding the bounds of the “community of trust” outlined in the White Book, faculty and staff had some disagreements. Regarding whether undergraduates and law students inhabit the same “community of trust,” three-fourths of respondents agreed, while one-fourth disagreed. When asked whether current students and alumni are “part of the same community of trust,” 58.5% believed they are not, with 41.5% agreeing that they are.

(Responses to the questions: “Are undergraduates and law students part of the same community of trust?” and “Are current W&L students and W&L alumni part of the same community of trust?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Finally, faculty and staff weighed in on a large subset of the Honor System debate: discussions of Open Hearings. Respondents were divided on whether “someone who has reached an open hearing,” a step that comes after a finding of guilt by the Executive Committee, “is presumptively innocent or guilty?” Nearly half, 46.5%, responded that they were “unsure,” while 37.2% chose “innocent,” and 16.3% chose “guilty.”

(Responses to the question: “Do you think that someone who has reached an [O]pen [H]earing is presumptively innocent or guilty?” | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Overall, while many faculty and staff agree that the Honor System is important, they have mixed views on how it should be applied. Reflecting the deep divisions among students over how to improve the Honor System's institutional design and enforcement, unanimity among the faculty was hard to find.