Washington and Lee University's (W&L) Honor System is considered to be one of the main moral pillars of the institution, which is traced back to the years when General Robert E. Lee assumed the presidency of the university (1865 – 1870). Since then, entering students vow to never cheat, lie, steal or behave in any manner that could compromise their reputation as gentlemen. As the current version of the White book states “the Honor System of Washington and Lee is based on the fundamental principle that a spirit of trust pervades all aspects of student life.” While the system has become one of the unique “trademarks” of the institution, debates about what actions are considered violations, the significance of having female students attending the university and, the general effectiveness of the system, are not uncommon. Is the system a dated product of the culture and time from which it arose? Are the interests it first served still a significant part of the community life at W&L?
One of the first actions taken by General Robert E. Lee in 1865, in order to start establishing a relationship of trust between faculty and students was stopping “faculty visitation of dormitories and all other clandestine supervision of students’ conduct.” Moreover, by 1905, students took over the administration of the system and created the Executive Committee of the Student Body. This focus on self-government and self-reliance closely echoes some of the basic principles of American civic and political culture that originated with the Declaration of Independence and developed throughout the following century - principles mainly regarding individualism and a widespread opposition against too centralized power. In other words, W&L's Honor System could be considered a translation of the basic American values of self-government and social responsibility, into practical notions applied to the learning environment. In my opinion, it was in Lee's best interest as W&L's President, to create a space where students could feel trusted and feel as they were considered equal independent adults, given that the country itself was undergoing a very similar transition.
However, what does this say about the moral value of having an honor system based on these premises? Karl Marx argued that “moral values are ideological in character – that is, they are not products of pure reason but are the effects of material forces that are their source” (190). Thus, Marx seems to argue that the creation of moral values is the consequence of some type of material and/or personal interest, rather than the result of pure rational concern for the common good. From this perspective, it could be argued that the Honor System and the moral values it promotes were probably the result of Lee's ideology and/or, somewhat beneficial for the interests of the contemporary administrators.
Moreover, even though currently many understand the honor system as a tool to create a sense of equality between students, initially, the system aimed at creating “gentlemen” who held up to the standards of what was considered honorable and/or good during the nineteenth century. Interestingly, the very same concept of “gentleman” probably excluded many sectors of society, as women and African Americans, to mention some. The concept of having specific moral expectations and/or standards about what is 'good' for some, while others were excluded, seems to reflect the social class structure of the time. Nietzsche argued that “the etymological significance of the various symbols for the idea 'good' […] led back to the same evolution of the same idea, [that of] “'aristocratic soul,' 'noble,' […] 'with a privileged soul”(215). Taking this perspective in consideration, it could be argued that Robert E. Lee established an elitist, aristocratic and, discriminating moral standard for a few privileged ones.
Robert E. Lee's burial site at Washington and Lee University
Another aspect of the Honor System that points at its dated, or at least, very specific utility within the W&L community, is how the system probably would not be successful in other type of institution. For example, such system would not work in a regular European university, either because European students do not seem to hold the same standards regarding academic cheating and/or, because larger universities provide certain anonymity anonymity that often encourages cheating. Marx also expressed this point by stating that, “there are no moral philosophies that hold for all cultures and times” (191). However, it could be argued that the Student Body has attempted to address this generational gap between the first W&L students who submitted to the system, and the current students, by adding the clause that reads: “The Honor System condemns only acts that the current student generation views as breaches of the community’s trust, and although dishonorable conduct cannot be codified, lying, cheating and stealing have historically been found to be examples of breaches of the Honor System.”
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the system mainly serves the concept of tradition and the always-present reverence of Robert E. Lee's achievements, rather than aiming at creating a sense of social responsibility within and outside the W&L community. This personal opinion is mostly based on the controversies regarding the treatment of female students and sexual harassment at W&L. Concluding, even though it does create certain sense of security and trust within the community, W&L's Honor System could be considered an elitist ideology designed for few, which would not be often applicable outside Lexington.
M.J. Soria
Prof. Wasserman from Washington & Lee University added:
"To complete the thought, it would be worthwhile to consider the role of “honor” for the students of this university in the late 1860s. These were the sons of the ancestral ruling class, the rural aristocracy whose wealth disappeared with the emancipation of the slaves. “Honor” could serve as a binding ideology, a claim to moral superiority and a way to distinguish between men who belonged and those who did not."
Cited Work:
Albert, Ethel M., Theodore Cullom Denise, and Sheldon Paul Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics; An Introduction. [New York]: American Book Co, 1953.
http://www.wlu.edu/x7742.xml
Is not the current faculty practice of running students' papers through plagiarism software the equivalent to the clandestine faculty supervision in Lee's time?
ReplyDelete