W&L Community Discusses Honor System’s Enforcement

W&L Community Discusses Honor System’s Enforcement

Respondents to a Spectator student Honor System laid out their visions for reshaping the Honor System’s punitive elements.

NOTE: Given the lack of identity verification in the poll, those who filled it out are referred to as “respondents” and not as “students.”
Any students who wish to answer additional questions about the Honor System can do so here. Any alumni who wish to respond to an Honor System poll can do so here. Any faculty or staff members who wish to respond to an Honor System poll can do so here. 

(2021-22 White Book background, with a question mark overlaid, foreground. | SOURCE: The Spectator)

 The Honor System, a defining feature of student life at Washington and Lee University, is a heavily debated issue among the student body.

Many of its core components, including the Single Sanction, where all Honor Violations (HVs) result in the perpetrator being expelled, have elicited markedly opposing responses: being referred to by some as “extremely problematic,” yet retaining the support of just over half of respondents to The Spectator’s recent student poll.

To understand what the main concerns students have with the Honor System, The Spectator asked students, “What is one thing you would change about the Honor System?” Out of over 175 respondents to the poll, over 110 answered the question, with some suggesting more than one change.

While some respondents suggested changes to the Honor System’s structure, the enforcement of the institution was top of mind for many. Among these people, the Single Sanction received the most attention as something they would change.

The Single Sanction, labeled as “ridiculous” and “absurd” by one respondent and “anachronistic” by another, received pushback from over 40 respondents.

Roughly 20 of them simply called for the elimination of the policy. Many were blunt in arguing that, as one put it, we should: “Get rid of the single sanction.”

Others criticized whether the result of HVs under the Single Sanction, mandatory expulsion, “makes the consequences sometimes outweigh the choice by a lot,” as one respondent put it. “The single sanction is extremely harsh and doesn't offer anyone a second chance. I think that needs to be amended,” responded Aiden Kelsey, ‘27.

“Removing single sanction while still maintaining the integrity of our school. No one is saying that we should not have integrity and honor but kicking someone out of the school and ruining their life over a mistake is too much. Honor is incredibly important and cheating is abhorrent, but ruining someone’s life over cheating is too much,” another suggested.

“It seems so strict and like no one can make a mistake!” answered another, continuing, “People are people, and we all make mistakes. The idea that a single mistake could ruin you because of a single moment is a lot to process and I don’t think it’s fair. I think we need to enforce honor and justice, but we also need to be able to give grace. A lot of students talk about the honor system like a joke, and call everything in sight that they see ‘an HV.’ This blurs the line between what is actually an HV and what is not, and it causes a lot of students to live under misconceptions about the system and a lot of stress in the fear of being coded!”

One seemed to change their mind while answering, responding: “trash the single sanction policy, make it not totally vague, actually just get rid of it altogether.”

Others suggested that the Single Sanction be replaced with a tiered system of punishments (“[m]ore than one punishment,” as one put it), with more pressing offenses being addressed differently. “Not all violations are equal, so neither should the punishment be,” as one of 22 people who supported this idea said. Forced withdrawl “is too severe for some minor HV infractions,” another said.

The idea of tiered punishments manifested itself in different ways. Some thought that the Single Sanction should be reserved for only the most serious offenses. “There still should be single sanction violations, they should only apply to violations of a high degree,” said one respondent.

One argued that it would be better if “there would be the possibility of receiving a demerit for a smaller offense,” instead of the “all or nothing” Single Sanction. They added a factor of difficulty to this change, as punishment would be “subjective as severity of HV’s are dependent on each persons perspectives/values.”

Another argued that the school should “set up levels of consequences (community service, academic probation, etc) in place instead of outright ruining someone’s chances of a career.” Another said that the “single sanction should be amended to distinguish between intentional dishonesty and honest mistakes, ensuring that only willful violations result in expulsion.”

Some mixed support for Single Sanction reform with codification of the Honor System. “Single sanction only for certain pre-specified cases!” suggested one respondent. Some among this group saw it differently, with one arguing: “There should not be a one and done rule, it should be case-by-case.”

Others seemed to support eliminating expulsions altogether. “No more single sanction!!!! Some suspensions or something,” as one put it.

One framed supporting a tiered system in a unique way: to increase enforcement of the Honor System. “Varied punishments so more punishments can happen,” the respondent suggested.

Maggie Leventis, ‘28, agreed with this perspective. “The honor system needs tiers of punishment,” she said, adding, “With single sanction, anything that isn’t blatant cheating with another person, copying a whole paper, etc. will be found to be not guilty because the jury will be scared to kick someone out of the school for a perceived minor offense. In order to encourage the system to work in the way that it is supposed to, in academics at least, I believe punishment above nothing and below being kicked out of the school is a necessary edition.”

Two respondents supported the creation of a two-strike system for the Honor System. One such person argued: “A strike system versus one sanction could be greatly beneficial due to using a council to judge each case, so we should trust their judgment. If someone cheats on a test, exam, or equivalent- expulsion or severe consequences should be expected.” The respondent illustrated their argument using an example: “If someone uses AI for studying or increasing efficiency for busy work and/or hw in a class that prohibits AI than is it an HV worth expelling a student over? Failing the assignment or class (in extreme circumstances) may be a much more reasonable solution. A better understanding of how sources, specifically AI, can be utilized for efficiency and not just direct cheating would likely help a lot.”

The opposition against the Single Sanction was hardly unanimous, though. While the framing of the poll’s question prompted those opposed to the status quo to pose changes, as of the time of writing, a majority of 180 respondents support the system.

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

Three respondents argued that those guilty of HVs were unlikely to reform their habits if they were not expelled. “You aren’t sorry that you did it you’re sorry that you got caught and you’d probably continue to cheat if you didn’t get caught,” one respondent said.

One argued that the perceived decline of the Single Sanction has severely damaged the health of the Honor System. “The precedent of no longer single sanction being set (and I understand the argument that there is no precedent for the EC, and while that may be true for their decisions it is not true for the cultural understanding of it) creates a problematic future for W&L.”

Another defended the Single Sanction directly. “The crime always fits the punishment. Lying is lying if you are caught you should be dismissed,” they argued.

Much of the negativity around the Honor System focused on perceived issues in its enforcement.

Seven students argued that the Honor System should be applied against those who commit crimes. “[S]omeone that cheats gets kicked out for using AI vaguely but will not get kicked out for a Title 9 violation sexually harassing someone,” one student argued.

“I believe that students who assault other students should be held liable against the honor system and kicked out because they betrayed the trust of the community,” another added. “There is a lot of emphasis placed on academic protocol,” said another, adding, “Yet, when sexual assault happens or issues with alcohol, there is less enforcement. It just doesn’t seem fair to value academics over social issues, you have to value them all equally.” “Many areas of student behavior, such as underage drinking, sexual assault, etc., are not honorable actions. Yet honor among thieves seems to be just fine,” another respondent argued.

One such student tied their argument to the threshold set for HVs: “violating the community's trust.” “‘[V]iolating the communities trust’ should include cases where people cause others to fear for their safety on campus,” they argued.

Two students argued that the enforcement of the Honor System suffers from discrimination. The Honor System “should be enforced for every one regardless of their socioeconomic status,” one said.

While some thought that the Honor System is “being enforced on all these small stupid things and that's wrong,” others posited that the institution needed “[s]tricter enforcement” and “higher community expectations.”

“It’s integrity. Letting guilty people off is detrimental to our honor code. I came to this school partly because of the strong honor code and it feels like it’s softened up with society,” one of three such respondents said. “Enforce it,” another added.

“A single sanction should also apply for breaches of confidentiality from closed hearings, rather than being up to the discretion of the EC,” one more suggested.

Four students argued that potential jury nullification, if a student jury at an Open Hearing allowed a student guilty of violating the community’s trust off due to issues with the Single Sanction or other aspects of the Honor System, could hinder the proper enforcement of the Honor System.

Three students suggested that the fear associated with conviction for an HV undermines the fidelity of the Honor System. “Fear can never motivate true honor,” argued one such student. Another said “that sometimes people follow it out of fear and not by actual belief.”

While many respondents levied serious criticisms upon aspects of the Honor System’s enforcement, it is far from obvious how to properly address disparate criticisms of the institution, which maintains majority support on campus, according to The Spectator’s polling results.