W&L Faculty and Staff Discuss Honor System Reforms

W&L Faculty and Staff Discuss Honor System Reforms

Many respondents focused on the Single Sanction, while others pointed out a litany of perceived problems with the institution.

(The Washington and Lee Colonnade, as seen from the steps of Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark. | SOURCE: Alex Kagan)

 The Honor System remains a topic of conversation throughout the W&L community. Students are not the only ones having this conversation — faculty and staff responded in droves to a Spectator poll seeking their comments on the Honor System.

When asked what the most important change they would make to the Honor System, faculty and staff members took the question in several different directions. 

One respondent gave a positive assessment of the Honor System, expressing that they would change: “Nothing. It works. It is not perfect. But it is the ONE truly unique an[d] common aspect of the W&L experience that students keep and take with them.”

Some respondents were searching for, as one put it, “clearer expectations from school and class.” According to another, the school needed: “Clearer examples of things that might trigger the single sanction.”

“Needs clarity around AI,” one responded. Another agreed, saying, “University-wide expectations of what constitutes misuse of AI for instance would be very helpful.” “The EC needs to consult with a representative sample of faculty to discuss the implications of AI for its impact on student compliance with the honor system,” a respondent suggested.

One respondent answered that it is “[m]ore difficult to prove cheating with AI. Faculty needs tools and guidance for upholding honor code on this regard,” which would include an “[o]ption for Proctoring exams.”

One asked for “[t]ransparency,” while another wanted more “reporting and more accountability.”

One noted that the system’s perceived lack of transparency made it difficult to assess its health. “It was difficult to answer some of these questions about how the Honor System is enforced, because I know so little about enforcement as a faculty member. The system is opaque and the cases extremely closely guarded, so I really have no idea how the system itself is functioning,” they responded. “I only really know my students' impressions when I interact with them on honor-related issues in my courses, and I hear about my colleagues' senses of the same,” they continued. 

Several respondents clarified their views on the Single Sanction, with many opposing the institution entirely. Although more faculty members felt positively rather than negatively towards the Single Sanction, many were adamant that it must end.

“Get rid of single sanction,” and abolish “single sanction expulsion,” two respondents answered. Others argued for a new institution to replace the Single Sanction, with one respondent writing, “Severe single sanction dissuades reporting. There should be tiers or allowances for faculty to deal with classroom issues.”

One respondent took a mixed view, arguing that “the single sanction gives the Honor System a lot of its force among students, and eliminating it would rob it of some of its weight among students, which could damage it severely.” On the other hand, the respondent also argued that “the single sanction leads to a lot of under-reporting, because students and faculty who see a suspected (or obvious) honor violation don't want to see the student expelled as a result. I do think this under-reporting because of the single sanction undermines the Honor System to some extent, but it's not a problem easily solved.”

“I believe that the single sanction is the Honor System's biggest limitation,” another said. “Most students are (reasonably) unwilling to ruin a peer's life over anything but an extraordinarily serious and clear-cut violation. In turn, most faculty simply don't bother reporting academic violations because nothing will come of them,” they continued. “Ironically, I'd argue that the design of the system actually facilitates dishonorable behavior. Allowing for lesser consequences would help fix this,” they suggested.

Another respondent agreed with many of these sentiments, saying: “There is a reluctance to apply Honor System to small incursions, due to the heavy penalty.” Another respondent said, “Please eliminate the single sanction. This is way too harsh of a punishment for some scared 18-year-old who made a stupid mistake.” 

Another saw things differently, saying that “It is not the end of the world to be kicked out of W&L. A recent student found guilty transferred to SMU and another to Vanderbilt.”

“We do not have a functioning honor system,” another argued, noting the Single Sanction as the root of issues. “In some years, there are almost zero investigations because faculty view the current system as draconian, disproportionately punitive, and contrary to students' educational interests. Many perceive the EC as operating with excessive severity rather than balanced judgment,” they continued.

The respondent then argued that “[t]he solution is straightforward: implement gradations in sanctions.” “The current system is so fundamentally flawed that it even includes ‘lying’ among offenses warranting expulsion—a standard that, if uniformly applied, would implicate every member of the EC during their own time on campus,” they continued, arguing that these perceived issues “underscore[] the inherent unreasonableness of the single sanction approach.”

Another agreed, arguing that the “Severe single sanction dissuades reporting.”

Regarding replacements for the Single Sanction, one respondent opposed the multi-strike system proposed by some as a replacement. “I do strongly recommend that you do not go to a three strikes policy,” they argued, continuing: “I've taught at universities with three strikes and it encourages students to disrespect the system twice.”

Another respondent asked for “[t]iered punishments for severity of offense.” Another added, “There should be tiers or allowances for faculty to deal with classroom issues.” “Delineate violations that are worthy of getting expelled from those that could result in lesser punishments,” another respondent argued.

Some faculty and staff members pushed for more action from professors. One such respondent argued, “I'd like to see more overt faculty support in the form of vocal apprec[i]ation and willingness to support the system, and I would like to see more wi[l]lingness of students to report potential violations.” 

Another respondent said, “Prof. should create environment for honorable behavior, e.g. not give take home exams.” Another agreed, arguing: “non-supervised exams permit students to use[] cell phones to reference material. I've seen this in bathroom stalls.”

One respondent proposed an “Information meeting with all new hires, tenure track and visiting.” Another pushed for including a faculty member on the EC, saying, “I would add a voting faculty member to the EC, not as a source of oversight, but as a another perspective—a source of insight.”

Other faculty and staff members pushed students to put in more effort. “Students must be willing to vote against other students,” said one respondent. Another said, “I no longer bother to report HVs because I have zero faith that the EC can act objectively.” Another respondent said, “Students want to do the right thing, but need guidance.”

“I have always been concerned with students acting dishonorably outside the classroom, but the focus being more on classroom behavior,” another answered. 

“I have had several encounters as a faculty member where I could see that the student was guilty. These were not complicated and yet the student was found not guilty. Students must be willing to vote against other students,” reported one faculty or staff member. They continued: “Also, violating my trust as a faculty member IS violating the community trust. I am the one who is maintaining the even playing field for everyone else, and if the EC can't help, it doesn't stay as a level playing field. Students are doing other students in with their bad EC and open hearing decisions.”

Another respondent said, “A failure to find lying a violation of the Honor System will ultimately undermine the system. I have seen too many cases of lying passed over, where the student is not found responsible.”

“I think students' approach to the Honor System, to my limited perspective, has changed very little in my decade or so at W&L. I hear from colleagues about erosion of honor-related norms because of AI, which is troubling, but I've not seen a significant difference among my students,” another answered.

Regarding whether the average W&L student abides by the Honor System, one respondent gave a more nuanced answer. “My sense is that most students uphold it most of the time, including in ways that would be unusual at other universities and that I think we should be proud of. On the other hand, my sense is that most students have also either violated it in minor ways or have seen others doing so,” they said.

Regarding Open Hearings, one respondent said: “I'd like for students to have the courage to vote ‘guilty.’” The “single sanction does not work, because jurors are loath to apply it,” another answered. 

Another suggested major changes to all trials. “Redact all names from materials considered by the EC on HV trials,” they began, continuing: “Conduct hearings and interviews with a black screen between both parties so as to remove bias.” “Uniform application of clear criteria; publish to community full reasoning for decisions, as courts do,” another suggested.

The final major issue raised by some faculty and staff was how The Spectator conducted the survey. One respondent argued, “This is a poorly drafted survey which forces answers to certain questions in a way that is untenable (e.g.) inaccurately presumes a binary when neither answer is tenable to the respondent. I have skipped those questions because I am unable to answer them as posed.” Another respondent said, “I couldn't answer some questions because of the lack of a ‘don't know’ option or a ‘neutral’ option.”

Ultimately, many faculty and staff saw the Single Sanction as the main change they would make to the Honor System. Others pointed out perceived issues with clarity, transparency, rules on AI, enforcement and oversight, among others. It is clear that, for many faculty and staff, the Honor System needs significant revisions.