The Honor Code Vote – One Student Senator’s View
Should an honor code place one student against another? Is it the best way to ensure an honest and trusting atmosphere at a high school? Will it ensure moral action and thinking?
In the Final faculty-Student Senate meeting of the winter term, we voted to adopt an honor code for Lawrence Academy. I left with a feeling of accomplishment because I was confident that an honor code would help establish an honest and trusting atmosphere at Lawrence.
However, I did not always feel so confident about the need for an honor code. When it was first brought to the Senate, I had to work to understand and accept it. Then I needed to convince other students that it would be a helpful addition to the school. For a year, we debated the need for an honor code in Senate meeting and class meetings. Using objections and suggestions, the proposal underwent various revisions. Along with most student members of the Senate, I fully supported the final draft. Although it took a long time for the senators to reach a conclusion, I hope that over time the faculty and students will gain increased understanding of the need for an honor code and accept an honor code as a necessary part of school life.
When the honor code proposal first came under consideration in the spring of 1998, many students, including members of the Senate, were quick to criticize it. Students did not fully understand the role of an honor code; many saw it as another rule to obey. The earlier drafts of the honor code included specific penalties for violations of the honor code, which many students opposed. Students were expected to report or confront a fellow student if they knew that he/she had cheated, lied, or stolen. Failure to confront or report a student would result in a period of probation. Students opposed this obligation to take action against another student because they did not see it as their responsibility. They feared that a mandate to confront peers would create friction and that a subsequent report could not easily be kept confidential.
However, numerous members of the Senate and I saw that these actions were perhaps the only way to address a serious problem that a student might have. In addition, our school needed something tangible to protect students who did not cheat, lie, or steal but were ultimately the victims of such behavior. After much discussion and debate in class and Senate meetings, the proposal was revised to eliminate any formal disciplinary actions, although the expectation to take action if one witnessed or knew about any dishonest behavior still existed. I saw the revision to eliminate all formal penalties in the honor code as a huge step in gaining student approval, both inside and outside of the Senate.
Another part of the code which received student criticism was a requirement for students to write a pledge of honor on every piece of work submitted, stating that it was the result of their own thinking and effort. Many students thought that a pledge of honor for each piece of paper submitted was excessive, but a less frequent pledge of honor could be a helpful reminder of their responsibilities. This section was revised to require a pledge of honor at the beginning of each term, affirming that each student will behave honestly and responsibly at all times. In signing this pledge of honor, students have reminders of these moral values and a responsibility to perform honestly in the school environment. The revised pledge of honor also helped gain student approval for the honor code.
Another turning point occurred when students began to examine the role of an honor code as something other than a new set of rules and regulations to obey. In order to understand the purpose of an honor code, the real question was what type of environment we wanted to live in. As Senate members, we brought this question to class meetings for discussion. Most responded that we needed an environment where students and faculty could live in complete trust of one another. Although some did not see a need for an honor code, we, as Senate members, concluded that this type of environment could only be achieved through first adopting an honor code. Implicit in an honor code is a belief in the integrity of human beings; it also provides students a clear explanation of the importance of behaving with the integrity and the expectation that our resulting actions will increase trust and respect in the LA community.
As the time to vote for the honor code approached, I and many other student members of the Senate felt pulled in two directions; we wanted to vote based on our consciences, but we wanted to represent the remaining skeptical and uncertain views of our fellow students. At the time of voting, most of us took the first option and voted according to our consciences, which we believed would eventually benefit every member of the school.
I voted in favor because I wanted to go to a school where I could feel comfortable taking an exam without worrying about someone looking at my paper and where I could be trusted visiting a dorm as a day student. I imagined that other students and future students of Lawrence would feel the same way.
Although the full acceptance of an honor code will take time, an important process has begun, one which I believe will ensure moral action and thinking here at Lawrence Academy.
By Alyssa Vangelli
Class of ’99, Lawrence Academy
Groton, Massachusetts
Reprinted with permission from the Powderhouse Gazette
Lawrence Academy, May 1999