TO THE EDITOR:
Signing the Honor Code is a binding act in which an individual pledges, on their honor, that they comply with what it states. This is done on pain of great punishment; one can face expulsion for grievous violations of the Honor Code. Ought not this act be meaningful?
Honor.unc.edu declares “that all members of our community should be responsible for upholding the values that have been agreed upon by the community.” Despite such rhetoric, the majority of test administrators feel compelled to methodically prowl lecture halls.
Were the Honor Code not compulsory, I would possess no objection. A teacher ought to take such measures to gauge honesty if no pledge is given. These measures, however, are deeply insulting when honor is invoked. Presently, whenever a student is inspected for cheating, they are named liar.
The frequency with which teachers require the Honor Code be signed and then methodically seek out dishonesty demonstrates that, as a whole, they place no value in the honor of students. If our honor is without value, then why request it? If I am not trusted to listen to Nirvana instead of a lecture during exams, then do not require a meaningless gesture which receives neither credibility nor authority.
Joshua Watkins
Senior
Philosophy
