What is an Honor Violation? The White Book Can’t Tell You.
What is an Honor Violation? The White Book Can’t Tell You.
To save the Honor System, we must reintroduce an objective foundation of morality and truth.
(George Washington Blinded by the White Book | SOURCE: Adobe Firefly)
“Any breach of the community's trust is considered an Honor Violation, punishable by a single sanction: removal from the University.”
Thus reads the preamble to the White Book, the governing document of our Honor System. Despite its extensive enumeration of the Honor System and its enforcement mechanisms — running over 10,000 words — there is no concrete explanation of what actually constitutes an Honor Violation.
In fact, the White Book explicitly declines to provide a definition clarifying what an Honor Violation (HV) is. “At Washington and Lee, dishonorable conduct is not codified.” Rather than explaining what sorts of actions are HVs, the White Book says that “the Honor System is based upon the principle that any action deemed a breach of the community's trust shall be considered an Honor Violation.”
Each generation of students “defines the Honor System by its actions and the behavior it deems dishonorable” and is called to “vigilant custodianship.” Any student who commits an HV “in the eyes of the Student Body” receives the Single Sanction.
But what if the student body decides that lying, cheating or stealing are acceptable? One can easily imagine a scenario where cheating becomes so widespread that the student body decides that cheating on an exam or paper is not a violation of the community’s trust.
The accessibility of AI has made this a reality at many colleges around the country. If this were to happen at W&L, according to the White Book, cheating would no longer be an Honor Violation.
Honor at W&L — and its moral foundation — is subjective. This subjectivity leads to rampant confusion. How can we confidently employ a Single Sanction system with unclear foundations, and that is rooted in a subjective conception of honor and morality?
Even worse than its vague obscurity, the Honor System and the Single Sanction do not apply to many offenses that clearly violate the community’s trust, despite the White Book’s claim of universal application. Physical assault, sexual assault, and driving under the influence are not Honor Violations.
Why? You will not find answers in the White Book. You would need to visit the school’s website, under the Student Conduct section, where it outlines the complex jurisdiction of the university’s numerous judicial bodies.
Physical assault? Not an HV; it goes to the SJC. Drug dealing? Also not an HV; it goes to the SJC. Hazing? Not an HV; it goes to the IFC. Sexual assault? Not an HV; it goes to the Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Board.
Even worse, the suggested sanctions for these offenses — many of which are felonies and are egregious violations of the community’s trust — are merely suspension.
(Table explaining suggested sanctions for SJC violations | Source: W&L Website)
The student Executive Committee — the Honor System’s governing body — has its hands tied in many of these matters due to a lack of jurisdictive and investigative capabilities. The EC can not handle the prosecution of every student offense. However, problems arise when the recommended penalty for students who have committed some of the objectively worst possible violations of the community’s trust, like sexual assault against other students or a DUI with other students in the car, is suspension.
Students found guilty of felonies should be expelled based on their convictions — no student investigation necessary. Granted, this might violate the idea of a student-run Honor System in the absolute sense. But I would rather trust our nation’s criminal justice system and expel felons who have blatantly and deplorably violated the community’s trust than compromise our values by standing on the ideal of a student-run Honor System and allowing them to stay.
The White Book, in its current state, is completely dishonest. It purports to punish all violations of the community’s trust, but clearly does not. While I would hope that we can reform the system to ensure that all offenses are properly prosecuted and punished, at a bare minimum we should change the wording of the White Book to be honest and transparent, thereby reducing confusion among the student body.
The solution to our broken Honor System is not complete codification, an extensive list of which actions do and do not qualify as Honor Violations. Such an attempt would inevitably be incomplete and allow some students to figure out how to cheat the system through statutory loopholes. Returning to partial codification, however, something that used to be part of the Honor System – could significantly ameliorate the issue.
Removing the partial codification that previously defined the system has systematically wiped out the objective foundation of honor over the past decades. The Honor System had an objective standard of morality since its inception, but no more.
James Gunn, ‘45, known for his extensive personal research on the subject, wrote in a research paper that the Honor System has “always come down essentially to: ‘A Washington and Lee student does not lie, cheat, or steal, and to supporting statements concerning mutual trust.’”
Over the past 25 years, however, this objective standard has been erased from the Honor System. Iain MacLeod, ‘22, performed comprehensive research on the history of the White Book. Concerning the gradual erasure of objective morality and partial codification in the Honor System, he wrote:
In the 2000-2001 academic year, the White Book represented honor itself as a subjective concept for the first time, though lying, cheating, and stealing were still established as clear violations. By 2006, lying, cheating, and stealing were represented as only a “historical standard” for the violation of the community’s trust, and by 2015, lying, cheating and stealing were no longer explicitly mentioned in the White Book.
We must return to the partial codification structure the Honor System once had and establish, at a bare minimum, that lying, cheating, and stealing violate the community’s trust.
Ultimately, despite its issues, the problem is not rooted in the defunct Honor System — it lies in a lack of honor among the student body. Strengthening the Honor System can reinstate honor in our students.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the renowned Dominican friar, priest, theologian and philosopher, supported this idea in his Treatise on Law.
He argued: “The perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training.” As some people are “depraved,” he wrote, it is “necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might desist from evil-doing, and leave others in peace.” He continues, explaining that “this kind of training, which compels through fear of punishment, is the discipline of laws.”
Weak laws enable vice, strong laws cultivate virtue. By strengthening the Honor System, we can work toward restoring honor and virtue within the student body.
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.
