Comparing the Honor Code from 1909 to the 2009 Honor System led to an interesting discovery: there aren’t many changes besides the wording, which currently allows less room for interpretation. However, one significant and interesting difference from the policy today is that, 100 years ago, “[in] accordance with Article VII, Section 3, The Student prints the constitution of the honor system in full.” Today, only first years see the honor code because, upon entering the College, each student is bound by its terms for his or her entire Amherst career.
Although I am fully aware of the presence of the honor code and occasionally reminded by professors during the first classes of the semester, I haven’t really reviewed the policy. I have always understood the honor system as something expected to be part of the character of a student at Amherst. Upon closer examination, I realized that this expectation is taken so seriously that every four years students have the ability to vote for revisions to the honor code policy, which in turn needs to be accepted by the faculty. According to the College’s Honor Code Preamble,
“At least every fourth academic year, the College Council will review the current Honor Code and will propose a new Honor Code to the campus community. (A new Honor Code might contain no revisions of the current Honor Code.) The proposed new Honor Code will be voted on by students, and, if it passes, by faculty. If it is not favored by majorities of both, then the current Honor Code will stay in effect while the College Council reviews it again the following year, and will remain in effect until an alternative version is passed by majorities of both the students and the faculty.”
Students 100 years ago did not have this power. However, the high importance of honor on this campus remains despite slight changes in the procedures of implementation. There are simply more liberal procedures governing the system than in the past. For instance, if a student is found guilty of breaking the honor code, the professor is the one who decides whether or not the student actually fails the course. Suspension often occurs, with the length being a function of the severity of the infraction, but rarely do any permanent separations from the community take place. On the other hand, the honor code 100 years ago called for any non-freshman to be separated from the College immediately upon conviction of a violation to the Honor Code.
Another interesting aspect to consider is the rule that prohibits teachers from proctoring examinations. Article I of the 100-year-old policy states (from The Student September 27, 1909):
ARTICLE I.
Section 1. The honor system under which, after the examination is set by faculty, no faculty surveillance is exercised, and under which the student body, through a committee, controls investigations concerning dishonesty in examinations.
Section 2. The instructor may be present for a few moments at the opening of the examination to answer any question that may arise.
Section 3. During examinations, each student shall have perfect freedom of action and conversation, provided he does not interfere with the work of others.
Current Amherst guidelines are slightly different, stating, “Examinations shall not be proctored unless an instructor judges that the integrity of the assessment process is clearly threatened. An instructor may be present at examinations at appropriate times to answer questions,” This interpretation leaves more teacher discretion than the 1909 version. Rather than simply being available for a few moments at the opening of the exam, professors can now be present at any time, not just at the beginning. It also adds a condition in which an exam could be proctored, one that was not included in the original version.
The Amherst College Honor Code has been around for more than 100 years. A tradition of this age holds great precedence in any institution and will, without question, live for as long as the College does.