Preserving Our Community of Trust
Preserving Our Community of Trust
Nine practical observations to save the Honor System from two former Executive Committee presidents.
(Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark. | SOURCE: The Generals Redoubt)
For most alumni — regardless of age, gender, profession, or political persuasion — the Honor System is one of the most influential aspects of their Washington and Lee experience. Unfortunately, it is now being challenged — and perhaps unsupported — more than ever before.
The benefits of living in W&L’s “community of trust” are clear. Students are presumed to be honest and act with integrity. Undergraduate exams are independently scheduled and unproctored. Personal belongings can be left on campus without worry. The library and classrooms remain unlocked. And each time a student “Pledges” that their work is their own, they affirm their commitment to the Honor System.
Several aspects distinguish W&L’s Honor System from those at other universities. It is entirely student-administered and enforced, and the Single Sanction — wherein a student is immediately dismissed from campus — remains the sole punishment for an Honor Violation.
Although Robert E. Lee is often credited with creating the Honor System during his presidency of Washington College, research shows that an Honor System existed even before the Civil War. But President Lee’s famous pronouncement, “We have but one rule here; and that is ‘every student must be a gentleman,’” was the proverbial standard that molded the System and its gentlemanly adherents for generations. And, most notably, under Lee’s tenure, a progressive change occurred, shifting disciplinary administration from faculty to students.
In 1905, the Executive Committee (EC) of the Student Body was formed to educate students on the Honor System and to oversee its enforcement. That structure remains in place today, despite periodic calls for greater faculty and administrative involvement.
Over time, however, the definition of an “honor violation” has become increasingly vague. For decades, the rule was simple: “A Washington and Lee student will not lie, cheat, or steal.” By 2006, these words were relegated to “historical standards” in the White Book and soon disappeared altogether, replaced by the ambiguous phrase “any action deemed a breach of the community's trust.”
This shift has led to confusion — for students, faculty, and even the EC — about what conduct constitutes a violation. Without a clear standard, orientation for new students and (especially) faculty becomes more difficult, and the Single Sanction feels uncertain and inconsistently applied.
This confusion undermines the Honor System and its role at W&L. It is no exaggeration to say that the most significant value of life at W&L is under threat.
Of course, institutional values evolve over time. And as Washington and Lee’s students bring an increasingly diverse range of perspectives, experiences and backgrounds to campus, it becomes even more critical to preserve the traditions that cultivate integrity and excellence.
A shared understanding of honor cannot be assumed; it must be taught, reinforced, and exemplified. It is neither fair nor realistic to expect all freshmen and law students to arrive with the same conception of honor or the same commitment to it.
The United States Military Academy has addressed this challenge by affirming that its Honor Code is “the foundation for shaping a cadet’s character … not a restriction, [but] an invitation to build a foundation of integrity that can withstand any challenge.” Should W&L adopt a similar approach, emphasizing the Honor System’s formative role in the education and development of every student?
Independent polling conducted by The Spectator in October 2025 indicated that over 95% of students felt The Honor System “was important for a university.” Yet only 60% support it in its current form. Nearly half of those polled said the current standard is ambiguous.
The outcome of last month’s Open Hearing underscores this confusion. Separate research has found that many students also fail to sign the White Book or “Pledge” their work, problems that appear largely unaddressed.
The Single Sanction has withstood question and attack for decades. Its underlying principle is whether a student is honorable or not. Honor is unambiguous. The current W&L student body has mixed feelings about dismissal as the sole punishment for an Honor Violation, the consequence of a system so poorly defined by modern handbooks.
Faculty concerns mirror those of students. Some professors quietly impose their own penalties for cheating, such as assigning a failing grade, rather than referring cases to the EC. Others avoid reporting violations altogether, citing fear of reputational harm, peer pressure, or time demands.
Given these circumstances, several steps could strengthen the Honor System and restore clarity and confidence:
Return to the simple standard: “A student will not lie, cheat or steal.” These are universally understood and provide clear expectations for student conduct.
Reinforce the Honor System in recruitment: Highlight it prominently in admissions materials, campus tours and faculty hiring processes. Emphasize the central role it plays in life at W&L, and that if you find it off-putting or outdated, the fact that you should look elsewhere for your education.
Mandatory White Book Signing: Require every freshman to sign the White Book before they leave the orientation in Lee Chapel. Telling them to sign it at their convenience in the library does not carry the same significance.
Add a separate session for law students: Integrate it into their orientation process and remind them that the Honor System is just as serious as any other oath they will uphold.
Hold annual training for all students: Reaffirm the Honor System’s purpose and expectations, both for new and returning students.
Engage the faculty: Have the Student Body President address faculty each year on their role in sustaining the System and its benefits.
Standardize the Pledge: Require the full statement — “On my honor, I have neither given nor received any unacknowledged aid on this [test/paper/etc.]” — on all academic work. Incomplete pledges should be returned to the student.
Demonstrate institutional support: Encourage the university president, the administration, and the faculty to actively participate in all Honor System orientations and training. While the system is student-led, it is university-supported.
Encourage Positive Dialogue: Everyone associated with Washington and Lee should proudly reminisce about the Honor System and its lifelong impact. Those of us with The Generals Redoubt have launched a new podcast series titled “On my Honor…” to engage with and find solutions to the critical issues facing the System.
The Honor System remains the cornerstone of Washington and Lee’s identity. By reaffirming its clarity, consistency, and shared responsibility, we can preserve this defining tradition for generations to come.
Stephen W. Robinson, ‘72, ‘75L, served as the student body and Executive Committee president during the 1971-72 school year, and as the 3L representative to the Executive Committee during the 1974-75 school year. He now serves as the president of The Generals Redoubt.
Bradley B. Root, ‘88, served as the student body and Executive Committee president during the 1987-88 school year, having previously served as a junior and sophomore class Executive Committee representative during the 1986-87 and 1985-86 school years, respectively. He now serves as the director of The Generals Redoubt.
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.