Through the years, the official documents, people and names of the organizations that have helped uphold that honor have changed.
Despite this fact and the major changes being proposed for the honor system, former UNC-system President Bill Friday said the basic principle of honor has never changed.
"There's a continuity of history here of student freedom that has made Chapel Hill different," Friday said.
But recently, there have been a few glitches in the honor system that have garnered considerable attention. Questions have been raised about how to preserve the system's student-run tradition while keeping it up-to-date.
It wasn't until 1946 that the student body constitution was created, adding five student courts to enforce honor on campus.
In 1974, the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance, which details the Code of Student Conduct and the student court procedures, was written, and it still governs today.
But in the spring of 2000, Honor Court charges against then-student Mike Trinh involving an honor violation brought a magnifying glass to the workings of the system.
Computer science Professor James Coggins reported Trinh and 23 other students for cheating on a group project. Trinh decided to open the trial to the public because he feared he wouldn't get a fair trial behind closed doors.
When Trinh was found guilty, the campus erupted in a sentiment of injustice and Trinh appealed. His guilty verdict was overturned in February 2001.
The controversy over the Trinh case set in motion a process of reassessing Honor Court procedures, which had previously been of little interest to the campus.
In December 2001, Chancellor James Moeser appointed a task force of faculty and students to address these and other problems. After doing Web surveys and interviewing students and faculty about their feelings on the honor system, the task force completed its review and made recommendations in June.
The Committee on Student Conduct is reviewing those recommendations and submitted a midyear report to the chancellor Oct. 15. The members expect to finish their review by the end of the semester.
According to the interim report, some possible adjustments to the honor system could include a five-person faculty advisory panel to support the student attorney general, an "XF" grade that would signify failure due to academic dishonesty, a student advocate for honor position to promote honor on campus and a change in the standard of proof from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "clear and convincing."
Addressing a feeling of faculty disconnection from the honor system, the interim report said it is likely the committee would recommend adding a faculty panel to the honor system, which would be available as counsel to the student attorney general when needed.
The idea of a faculty panel is somewhat controversial because it brings more faculty influence into a system that has been historically student-run.
But Sue Estroff, chairwoman of the Faculty Council said she welcomes more faculty inclusion into the honor system.
"The idea of it being student-run has meant everyone else out," Estroff said. "But it's all of ours, and that includes the faculty.
