At the end of every exam, and usually our other assignments,
we sign in our name pledging that we have abided by the Honor Code during the
exam and are not aware of any Honor Code breaches. Perhaps pledging his exam is
the only interaction that a typical student has with the Honor Code; for most
students, I would guess this is all the interaction they want. After all, when
you signed the Honor Code, attended the Mock Trial, and perhaps talked about
plagiarism in a rhetoric class, you probably came away from the experience with
the impression that the Honor Code exists to protect us from those who lie
cheat and steal; it certainly does, but the Honor Code is much more robust.
The Honor
Code is much more than a “rule.” If the
code only exists to help our school maintain a strong academic reputation,
build trust among students, and give us some peace of mind about our possessions,
why don’t we call it the ‘Cheating Code’, the ‘Stealing Code’ or the ‘Hampden-Sydney
Code’? We specifically follow an ‘Honor’
code because our system seeks to create a way of life rooted in honor, which we
can conceptualize as self-respect.
Aside from
the ‘external’ effects that lying, cheating, and stealing have on other
students, an Honorable person refrains from doing these things because they are
disrespectful to himself. Lying to
myself about the integrity of my ideas negates my own ability to search for
truth, understand the world more completely, and be a better intellectual.
Similarly, cheating and stealing only have the potential to put me better off,
in material standing, relative to others. Cheating and stealing can’t make me a
better person; they don’t contribute to my personal flourishing. In fact, by
choosing to lie, cheat or, steal, because I have chosen an easier road at the
expense of bettering myself, such actions actually detract from my flourishing,
making them disrespectful and likewise dishonorable.
Even the part of the honor code that reads “…nor tolerate those who do” contains elements
that should be part of our personal honor. Though this part of the Honor Code
is designed to require all rule followers to be rule enforcers, it is
reflective of the high standard we should reserve for our personal honor. By
not tolerating those who do break the honor code, Hampden-Sydney Men agree that
neither friendship, nor social standing exempt someone from the code; the code
applies equally to all. Likewise, as we seek to maintain our own personal
honor, no idea should be considered to have an intrinsic worth or being beyond
a standard which we are willing to question. In fact, if there is no
theoretical fact, mechanism, or idea, which if true would provoke you to switch
any position you hold, you are limiting just how honorable you can be.
As academic
environments become more competitive and students are driven to cheat,
conversations about Honor Codes will become more popular in academic
institutions. Schools who are struggling with academic integrity issues, are
attracted to Honor Codes because of their ability to keep students in line, but
Hampden-Sydney seeks to create “good men and good citizens” not just
intelligent men; our honor code is part of that mission, not just a mechanism
we use to minimize academic dishonesty.
By being honest, respectful, and therefore honorable, we can become
maximize our potential; push the limitations of what we perceived our limits to
be. Low cheating incidents, and trust among peers are only some of the benefits
our Honor Code provides, but these are not necessarily the goals of the Honor
Code. Even though most of us only encounter the Honor Code when signing a
pledge on an assignment every few weeks, I hope that each student takes a
moment to think about how the Honor Code exists to influence who you are, as
much as it seeks to influence what you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment