The Spectator Rejects a Two-Tiered Honor System

The Spectator Rejects a Two-Tiered Honor System

Proposed amendments to the White Book will shift responsibility for enforcing the Honor System away from elected representatives, creating two separate honor standards for law and undergraduate students.

(Lee Chapel in the winter. | SOURCE: The Spectator)

Last week, the Executive Committee (EC) voted to approve a set of amendments to the White Book, the governing document of W&L’s Honor System. These changes would shift control of Closed Hearings away from the elected EC toward panels largely shaped by the accused students’ school.

Last week, the Executive Committee (EC) voted to approve a set of amendments to the White Book, the governing document of W&L’s Honor System. These changes would shift control of Closed Hearings away from the elected EC toward panels largely shaped by the accused students’ school. 

(NOTE: To see the full, exact text of the proposed amendments, please refer to the Appendix listed at the end of the article.)

The Spectator opposes these amendments because they would place enforcement of the Single Sanction in the hands of a body unwilling to uphold it, while undermining the principle of representative, peer-driven judgment. Furthermore, the amendment creates a two-tiered system of justice that softly bifurcates the undergraduate and Law student bodies. 

The first amendment, approved by an 8-4 vote, changes the composition of juries for Closed Hearings. Under the current system, the elected members of the EC serve as the jurors of Closed Hearings. This structure ensures that the people the student body elects as representatives actually adjudicate Honor System cases.

However, if the amendments are approved, Closed Hearing juries will consist of the three officers of the EC, the EC representatives from the accused students’ school, and quorum fillers from the accused students’ school. 

For example, if a law student is accused of an honor violation, the voting members of their Closed Hearing would be the three EC officers, the three law school representatives on the EC, and seven quorum fillers from the law school student body. The elected undergraduate representatives on the EC would not be on the voting body. Officers of the EC can be either undergraduates or law students, but they tend to be undergraduates. 

In tandem with this first amendment, the EC voted in favor of a second amendment, which states that “the composition of [an open hearing] jury shall reflect the overall composition of the W&L community: nine (9) undergraduates and three (3) law students.” Open Hearings occur only when an accused student appeals the verdict of a  Closed Hearing. 

A second and final vote on the proposed amendments will occur later this week. The margin is narrow: a single additional “nay” vote would cause the amendments to fail. If two-thirds of the Executive Committee votes in favor, the White Book will be updated to include the proposed changes. 

As established in previous reporting by The Spectator, law students are significantly less supportive of the Single Sanction than undergraduates are. This makes law students less likely to enforce the Single Sanction, an essential component of the Honor System, thereby creating a gap in how honor violations are judged. 

In practice, if the amendments are approved and law students represent the majority of the voting body in Closed Hearings for accused law students, law students will be held to a comparatively lower honor standard. Students with similar cases could face different verdicts depending on whether they are undergraduates or law students. 

Additionally, under the proposed system, Closed Hearings for law students would consist of six elected EC members and seven non-elected quorum fillers. Our Honor System should be overseen by peers whom we elect for their trustworthiness, sense of honor and moral judgment.

Allowing a majority of closed hearing jurors to be unelected undermines the legitimacy of the process and erodes the principle of representative governance that defines the Honor System. It transfers authority away from selected student leaders and places it into the hands of those who have not been entrusted with that responsibility by their peers. 

As it stands, law students are already overrepresented on the EC. There are 369 law students at W&L, representing approximately 16% of the student body. On the EC, there are three officers, three law representatives, and seven undergraduate representatives. Assuming all officers are undergraduates, law students represent 23% of the EC. 

W&L’s shared community of trust is an exceptional feature of our university. These amendments split the Honor System, creating inconsistent standards that compromise the entire System’s integrity and purpose. 

If the law school benefits from the community of trust upheld by the Honor System, its students must be held to the same standard as undergraduates. The EC should vote to reject the set of proposed amendments later this week. 

If students have concerns about these amendments or other proposed changes to the White Book, The Spectator encourages them to contact their representatives on the EC.