“We will never, by any selfish or other unworthy act, dishonor this our College; individually and collectively we will foster her ideals and do our utmost to instill a respect in those among us who fail in their responsibility; unceasingly we will strive to quicken a general realization of our common duty and obligation to our College. And thus in manifold service we will render our Alma Mater greater, worthier, and more beautiful.” The Connecticut College Honor Code
In response to a Letter to the Editor submitted to The College Voice last semester by sophomore, Ben Smith, in which he crudely reproached Connecticut College’s Honor Code, I will offer an opposing sentiment regarding the merit of the document. Our college community of students, faculty and staff thrives on the principles of honesty, integrity and mutual respect. While many of us arrive at Conn with a deep respect for these virtues, it would be naive to think that they are never broken in times of clouded judgement, intense pressure or, sadly, out of apathy. To quote the document itself, the Honor Code acts as a reminder of our obligation to “uphold standards of behavior governed by honor”.
While I wholeheartedly agree that our moral education is an integral aspect of our experience here at Conn, Smith makes several claims about both the Honor Code and the Honor Council that make it clear that he has never read the Honor Code at all. In fact, he even claims to “use its pages as toilet tissue.” I would like to address some of his complaints so that he, and the rest of the student body, might gain a deeper understanding of the worth of our self-governance.
To begin, Smith claims that, “the Honor Code simplifies moral questions into ethical blacks and whites,” and goes on to complain about the Code’s policy on substance use, writing, “The drinking of alcohol or smoking of a bowl of marijuana can in no tenable way be considered dishonorable acts in themselves” (Smith). In fact, the Honor Code exists separately from the Student Code of Conduct, which handles illicit drug use and social functions policies. The Honor Code was amended about three years ago so that, as Smith says, students are not labeled “dishonorable” for their own isolated use of drugs or alcohol.
Furthermore, as a member of the Honor Council, I can promise you that no legitimate Honor Code violation is ever considered “black and white,” nor are any two cases considered in exactly the same way. We adamantly work to ensure that students found in violation of the Honor Code receive sanctions that fairly reflect the severity of the violation, and, more importantly, that help to educate them about the impact of their own actions on the community around them.
Smith complains that “the Honor Code is founded on an inherent mistrust of Conn students as is disallows us from exploring, testing, and discovering our own sense of moral right.” I wonder: What alternative system do you think would ensure more opportunity for students to explore, test and discover their own understanding of “moral right”? As students, we are responsible for the social and academic climate here on campus and holding each other accountable with that responsibility is essential in ensuring our safety and our happiness.
Smith calls the Honor Council, “a disgrace to any believer in civil engagement,” yet his attempt at civic participation in the form of his letter, is callous and uninformed. We, as Honor Council Representatives, work hard to make difficult decisions, often at the expense of our own personal relationships within the student body. Smith fancies himself a “pragmatist” with the ability to “recognize that Conn needs a legislative corpus” (Smith), yet he rejects the only system that gives him as a student ultimate power to uphold his ethical standards. Serving on the Honor Council is the most direct way that I know how to uphold standards of morality that I believe reflect the College’s spirit.
Next, Smith jumps into a list of five revisions he feels would make the Honor Code, “a document Conn Students can be proud of.” In attempt to illustrate that Conn students should be proud of the Honor Code, I will respond to each element of Smith’s wishlist.
1. “The abolition of Honor Council, that wretch of oligarchy, and the establishment of a system in which random members of the student body are summoned to adjudicate a single case.” – Smith
If he is going to ask for the “abolition” of Honor Council, Smith really needs to propose a better idea than asking for a random jury of students to oversee each case. Not only would that be a logistical nightmare, but I certainly would not feel comfortable having my own or my peers’ behavior judged by a student who knows as little about the Honor Code as he does. The Council undergoes a week of extensive training at the beginning of every year, and we are all well versed in the policies outlined by the Honor Code. We are aware of precedent, the seriousness of confidentiality, and we make a considerable time commitment to serve on the Council each week. “Random members of the student body” could not be expected to have nearly the same level of engagement with the process.
2. “The guarantee of the right of the accused party to face an accuser” – Smith
The accused party is guaranteed the right to face an accuser. The Honor Council does not accept any anonymous incident reports and the accused is always made aware of who filed a report against him or her. While, the complainant (preferred terminology) is not required to attend a hearing, unless the two parties are charged with a no contact order, the accused has every right to face the complainant. If a complainant does choose to attend the hearing, both parties have the opportunity to ask questions of one another, under the mediation of the Council. For obvious reasons, contact between parties is not recommended before a hearing takes place and before a decision is made. Ultimately, the accused can use his or her own judgement about the appropriateness of confronting a complainant.
3. “The ability by a two-thirds referendum vote of the student body to amend the Honor Code” – Smith
This is a legitimate concern, and one I encourage Smith to pursue if he feels passionately about it. Currently, there is no official policy on the student body requesting an amendment to the Honor Code. In the past, resolutions have been proposed to SGA and put to a vote. I agree that students should have the power to amend the Honor Code, however, it is worth pointing out that changing a policy in the Honor Code is a slow process that involves assembling a committee in charge of rewriting the policy. Policy changes must then be approved by several administrators before being deemed official.
4. “The removal of all parts of the Honor Code involving the use of illegal substances, though those found to be in violation of another section of the Honor Code while on substances will of course still be held responsible for their actions” – Smith
This is already the official policy of the College.
5. “The implementation of a policy that mandates that repeat offenders enroll and pass a full semester, four credit course on the nature of ethical thought, so as to reform through learning, not punishment” – Smith
This is, quite possibly, the most outrageous request on Smith’s list. In his introduction, Smith asks for more autonomy for students to discover their “own sense of moral right”, yet here he is asking for students to literally be taught “the nature of ethical thought”. Who does Smith propose will teach these courses? How does he suggest students will fit this course into their own tight schedules? Do repeat-repeat-offenders have to take the course twice? I strongly urge you, Ben Smith, to consider the hypocrisy of this suggestion.
Smith finishes with this: “We as a student body need to shake ourselves awake from our complacency and be active participants in our own moral education.”
He is absolutely right. I encourage Smith, however, instead of using the Honor Code to wipe his backside, to read it. I am confident that many of his concerns will be put to rest, and that he will have a more informed platform from which to pursue meaningful change.
