When signing up for insurance, purchasing a phone plan, or perhaps buying a used car, one is inevitably assailed by a pages-long legal document written in tiny font, which, if the Pew Research Center is correct, only 22 percent of Americans read all the way through. One’s relationship to this document is characterized by cumbersome and annoying box-checking. The feeling evoked is of cheap gamesmanship, not of solemn obligation. When companies try to act on these so-called “contracts,” the standard reaction is to sue them, not accept their judgement with a sense of dignity.
The Honor Code at the College, as it stands now, is no better than these cheap terms and conditions. The document first-years are confronted with during First Days is one of many check-the-box onboarding tasks placed before them at a time when their attention is already exhausted from days of alcohol trainings and academic briefings. The text of the Honor Code is as convoluted as it is long; the form concludes with the toggle more often found in the terms of a suspicious credit card offer:
Yes/No: I agree to the Honor Code.
It is little wonder, then, that the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity’s draft report complains that “signing the College’s Honor Code is not memorable or meaningful.” Unfortunately, the committee, created to propose Honor Code reform, has not yet come up with a solution to this problem.
Before I continue, I would like to applaud the committee on the work it has done so far. In a February 19th Record op-ed, Sam Sidders ’25 noted that the text of the Honor Code has not changed since 1971. The Ad Hoc Committee, though, has overcome institutional inertia to diagnose and prescribe solutions for many of the procedural issues that have plagued the honor system for years. Removing first-years from the Honor and Discipline Committee — allowing the group to begin work sooner at the start of the academic year — is a practical amendment. Offering the chance for professors to give students a sanction without going through the full, formal hearing process (so long as students do not contest it) is likewise a thoughtful way to reduce the Honor and Discipline Comittee’s workload.
However, the amended honor code — proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee in its draft report — continues to read like a “terms and conditions” disclaimer. It is neither memorable nor clear. It speaks in terms of tasks rather than values, and fundamentally fails to address its raison d’être: inspiring students to genuinely integrate integrity into their academic practices and personal lives.
This is the fundamental limitation of the Honor Code we have today. The proposed changes to our bureaucratic system of judgement increase efficiency, fairness, and stability. Yet no matter how much better the Honor and Discipline Committee gets, it is limited by its punitive modus operandi; it can only aspire to punish dishonesty rather than prevent it. If the goal is to ensure that the Williams degree is earned honestly and that cheating is eradicated from the classroom, then the current system of punishment gets us nowhere.
In order to reap any of the rewards of an honor system, the code must become an essential part of the culture at the College. The greatest effect of the code must not come after the judgement of a council, but in the conscience of a student before a violation ever occurs.
If this vision seems like a naive fantasy, I can assure you it is not: It exists at the college that I previously attended, just two hours south of us on the Hudson River at West Point. The Williams Ad Hoc Committee, when it turned to peer institutions in making its recommendations, looked largely to other liberal arts colleges like Colby, Wesleyan, and Amherst. But if it looked instead to the U.S. Military Academy, it would have found an honor system based on community standards, student buy-in, and personal accountability. West Point’s honor code is brief yet resonant: “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
This honor code is successful, in part, thanks to its overwhelming presence at the academy. The first brief New Cadets receive upon in-processing is about the honor code. It is reinforced in almost-weekly character seminars and discussions; there is even a monument to it on one of the academy’s most travelled pathways. Cadets are given reasons to care genuinely about the system: It upholds the value of their degree, ensures confidence among graduates in the workplace, and generates the trust needed for cadets to leave valuables alone in public or lend strangers their cars. West Point also has a system of enforcement, of course, but its honor code’s greatest effect is in the hearts and minds of its students, not in the quasi-courts of its honor boards.
Our code can produce this effect as well. It would not look the same, of course. The College is not a military academy, and perhaps our leadership feels it lacks the mandate to dictate moral standards outside the classroom. Adjustments can be made, while still taking lessons from West Point.
First and foremost, the Honor Code must be simple. For students to take the Code into account in the classroom, they must at least remember what it says. For them to consider it in their conscience, it must be a phrase that resonates with them and carries moral weight. In the ad hoc committee’s proposed code, students are instructed to “acknowledge the work and ideas of others,” “abide by instructor’s policies,” and “seek clarification of instructor’s policies if they are not clear.” Even considered alone, an ethical code defined by whatever the instructors say it is raises serious concerns. Yet when offered against West Point’s code, which asks students to conduct themselves with integrity broadly, in both their personal and academic lives, the room for improvement is clear.
What would a new honor code for Williams — a succinct, values-based, personally-oriented creed — look like? Let’s assume that the College wants to emphasize honesty in the classroom, without condoning poor integrity outside of it. West Point’s code might be redefined as follows:
“In the interest of academic integrity, a Williams Student will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
Second, and just as crucial, the Code must be integrated into the life and culture of the student body. First-years must be briefed on it immediately upon their arrival at the College, including a robust discussion on the purpose of the code, the definitions of its elements, and the system of discipline the College uses to reinforce it. The presentation should be augmented by small-group discussions with Junior Advisors (JAs), and all students should physically sign the Honor Code at a ceremony: An online terms-and-conditions-style form is inexcusable.
A cultural shift towards integrity cannot succeed without student buy-in. Unfortunately, some of the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations threaten to erode that support. Although, as the committee notes, the current turnout requirement for amending the Code may be impractical, the student body should still vote on any changes. While moving the Honor and Discipline Committee from elected membership to appointments may improve stability, a democratic check should remain, perhaps in the form of a power to recall representatives and get a new slate of students appointed with a majority vote.
Even more important to the legitimacy of the honor code, however, is that students feel the code is tied to their actual sense of personal integrity. Variation in definitions of academic integrity across different professors’ syllabi should be limited. Allowing professors to customize the definition of academic integrity disempowers students; it makes the honor system feel distant, top-down, and externally-imposed. If, however, the elements of the code emphasize whether a student intended to lie, cheat, or steal, the student becomes an active participant in the system, wrestling with its terms every time they choose how to pursue their assignments or respond to an email.
Our current disciplinary system is a transactional and poorly defined set of terms and conditions that fails to instill a sense of duty or a community committed to honor. Reaping the rewards of a college-wide culture of integrity is possible if we are willing to make the bold changes required. The College deserves a culture of academic and personal honesty, and the only way to achieve it is with an honor code that sets a high moral standard that students are genuinely inspired to live by.
Devon Pawlak ’27.5 is from Milwaukee, WIS.
