Honoring the future

I also have much to learn about the honor process. I think a big issue is where to draw the line between something “trivial” and a serious honor offense. The term itself is pretty ambiguous, and the question is even greater considering that juries are comprised of randomly chosen students. Cheating on a test would be considered an offense worthy of expulsion under most circumstances. What about a quiz? Is asking a classmate about an independent assignment classified as cheating? How is this different from attending office hours? In other words, is there a measure of consistency to compensate for the differing student opinions that will inevitably come with the current jury selection procedure? (For all I know, there could be an explanation of all of this somewhere, which brings up another question: where is the best place for uneducated students like myself to find information about honor policies and debates?)
Ross brings up a good point in his discussion of the single sanction. I think the single sanction is a great disincentive for students to commit major honor offenses; in fact, the system may not be as reliable without it. However, is there a significant punishment – other than the embarrassment associated with being brought up on an honor charge – for trivial crimes? If not, students have no real reason to avoid committing minor offenses. Most students will not break the honor code, even in trivial ways, out of the goodness of their hearts; they care about the University and its traditions. But people at the University are still people, and people act in their own self-interest. One thing is for sure: if students become accustomed to “trivially” violating the honor code, it will degrade into a merely superficial aspect of the University. Clearly, this is not the case now, and I am proud to attend a school where professors have no qualms about giving take-home exams. But I would like to know what safeguards are built into the honor system to ensure its longevity.