A Proactive Defense of the Traditional Honor System

The modern Honor System’s self-contradictory subjectivity can only be resolved by a return to its roots in objective morality.

Another White Book Review Cycle is behind us.

Proponents of the traditional Honor System could be excused for breathing a sigh of relief. The Executive Committee rejected several sweeping changes proposed by the White Book Review Committee, including the introduction of demographic profiling and increased administrative influence on Honor investigations.

As usual, however, the rejection of more radical alternatives masks a pernicious change: the Chairs of Student Body Hearings will no longer be required to strike for cause prospective jurors who will not affirm their commitment to administer the Single Sanction. Jurors in Open Hearings are, along with the EC and Hearing Advisors, the procedural executors of the Honor System. Permitting a juror to execute that office while rejecting the Single Sanction is an implied censure of the Single Sanction itself.

This weakening of the single sanction continues a trend that, as I have documented in a prior article for The Spectator, extends back at least 25 years. During this period, Honor has been redefined as a subjective concept based on the almost comically ambiguous principle of “community trust.” Further, lying, cheating, and stealing have been removed as codified Honor Violations following the rise of the deleterious yet speciously attractive doctrine of total non-codification, which is simply moral relativism under another name.

The Single Sanction is the Honor System’s last link to objective morality. The exclusive consequence of expulsion is an unequivocal line in the sand implying a basis in absolute right and wrong. The community trust standard, in contrast, has no firmer basis than majority rule and taken at face value implies a flexible system of punishment. 

The tension between these incongruent principles is at the center of most contemporary debates regarding the Honor System. It can only be resolved either by re-anchoring Honor to an absolute moral standard, or by eliminating the Single Sanction. If the latter course is taken, then the Honor System will be irrecoverably lost.

Opponents of the overt moral relativism and thinly veiled humanism in the contemporary Honor System tend to argue defensively, focusing on detrimental effects of the subjective System. However, based upon further reflection and my experience debating the issue, I consider this approach insufficient. If the Honor System is to be saved, then its defenders must provide an alternative to the subjectivity, confusion, and mistrust that attend the System in its current state. 

I firmly believe that the only alternative is a return to the Honor System as it should have remained and as it was through most of the twentieth century. Therefore, what follows is a succinct summary and proactive defense of the traditional Honor System.

The Honor System is based on four principles:

1. Honor and honorable behavior are based on an objective and absolute right and wrong.

2. The student body of Washington and Lee must behave honorably.

3. The only acceptable consequence of dishonorable behavior is expulsion from the student body.

4. Only by self-enforcing these standards can students effectively prepare themselves for honorable postgraduate lives.

The Honor System is organized as a system, not a code, because codes of conduct are limited in scope and seek to restrict or encourage specific behaviors. In contrast, Washington and Lee’s Honor System seeks to promote honorable behavior at all times in all situations to lay a foundation of self-discipline, justness, and integrity that students will build upon for the rest of their lives. 

To achieve this end, the System codifies three behaviors as clear examples of Honor Violations: lying, cheating, and stealing. All three behaviors are particularly pernicious in an academic environment, the universal thread binding the Student Body together. Additionally, all three are considered relatively “minor” infractions in many non-academic settings. 

Codifying lying, cheating, and stealing as Honor violations emphasizes that the Honor System is not only not a code of conduct, but also more than a code of conduct. Codes of conduct succeed only in prescribing or prohibiting actions and behaviors tailored to specific circumstances; Prohibiting lying, cheating, and stealing maintains the same unequivocality while amplifying it to apply to all circumstances. Instead of adhering to a code to avoid punishment, students of Washington and Lee are expected to strive for the highest standard of conduct they can imagine.

Because the student body will not tolerate dishonorable behavior, the Honor System has a Single Sanction for those convicted of Honor Violations: expulsion from the University. Potential Honor Violations are confidentially investigated and adjudicated by an Executive Committee of undergraduate and law students who are elected by their peers. 

If this committee convicts an accused student, that student has the option to withdraw from the University to prevent publicization of their Violation. If they maintain their innocence, they may appeal their case to a hearing open to the entire student body, adjudicated by a jury of their peers.

The Honor System’s best defense is its limited codification, which, while acknowledging absolute right and wrong in the total prohibition of lying, cheating, and stealing, implicitly recognizes humans’ fundamentally flawed nature in not codifying the system further. This prevents any individual or faction, whether motivated by religious, philosophical, or self-interested considerations, from hijacking the system to enforce their preferred behaviors. 

Further restraining the dangers of faction and self-interest is the ultimate accountability of all students to the student body. In fringe cases such as a student accidentally picking up a peer’s pencil or other small article in class and keeping (“stealing”) it, the EC’s accountability to its constituents through both Open Hearings and annual elections is a strong inducement for the committee to presume innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The beauty of the Honor System is the payoff in mutual trust that stems from its high expectations for personal conduct and accountability to peers. Washington and Lee students have long enjoyed benefits unheard of at most other universities, such as un-proctored tests and the ability to leave one’s belongings anywhere on campus without worrying they’ll be stolen. 

Importantly, these benefits extend beyond campus as well. The unique bond of trust shared by all who attend Washington and Lee allows alumni to help students in their careers, trusting that those students will uphold the same standard of conduct that they upheld themselves. Even beyond alumni-student connections, W&L alumni are widely recognized as desirable employees due to their nearly universal honesty and trustworthiness.

The Honor System is the soul of Washington and Lee. As it goes, so will the student body. If it dies, so will the distinctive bond of trust that has bonded Washington and Lee students and alumni for more than a century. 

[The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's 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.]