Honor standard inconsistent in academic, social settings

Producing honorable academic work is a clear priority for most, if not all, Davidson students. Davidson College prides itself on graduating students of integrity even in an intensely challenging academic environment. While other colleges may promote a meaningless honor code, Davidson students know that the Code here is truly lived, breathed and trusted for academic work. There are, however, differences in perception about how the Honor Code and its partner, the Code of Responsibility, function in social settings.

Purpose of the Code of Responsibility

From the beginning, the Code of Responsibility was intentionally designed to enforce behavioral issues separate from the Honor Code.

"The attempt was very conscious and very deliberate to have the Code of Responsibility separate from the Honor Code—they were two really different things," said Hansford Epes '61, Registrar and Professor of German and Humanities.

Epes, who has been at Davidson as either a student or faculty member for 55 years, was a part of the team that wrote the Code of Responsibility. "It was purposeful all the way around by those involved that cluttering the Honor Code with lots of behavioral items was simply a poor idea," he said.

"We were really conscious of saying the Honor Code as it stands applies to a very specific set of circumstances closely related to the central mission of the College—the academic mission," said Epes.

The Code of Responsibility emerged from broader conversations about student rights because "when you talk about student rights you have to talk about student responsibilities," said Epes.

"That's why it's called the Code of Responsibility," he continued. "That is, we accept responsibilities for certain things and penalties for infractions, but it has little to do with the Honor Code as such."

According to The Red Book, the Code of Responsibility generally deals with cases related to financial responsibility, social responsibility, vandalism, harassment, sexual misconduct, alcohol consumption by minors, drugs, weapons, respect of Campus Police and residence hall life. The Honor Code deals with lying, cheating, stealing and plagiarism.

Enforcement of the Code of Responsibility

Enforcement of the Code of Responsibility is based on whether the violation is carried out by an individual or by an organization.

The Judicial Board handles violations by individuals. It does not conduct trials the way the Honor Council does. Rather, the Judicial Board conducts Administrative Hearings, after which the accused student will meet with Associate Dean of Students Ernest Jeffries to give him a disposition regarding whether he or she takes responsibility for the charge.

If a student takes responsibility for the charge, then the Judicial Committee will meet to determine the sanction. This committee is comprised of three students from the Honor Council chosen at random, one faculty member of the Student Conduct Council chosen at random and Jeffries as the Chair.

In any given semester, the Judicial Board hears about six to eight cases on average. Sanctions generally fall along the lines of apologies, community service or social probation.

However, if the student does not take responsibility for the charge, "then it goes to the Honor Council as the adjudicating body for a trial to continue the investigation," said Jeffries. "They treat it the same way that they would an Honor Code violation that someone didn't admit guilt to." This situation is rare. In his 16 years at Davidson, Jeffries has only seen three or four cases of this nature.

The Patterson Court Judicial Board ("J-Board") handles Code of Responsibility violations by Patterson Court organizations. The Patterson Court J-Board is structured similarly to the Honor Council, in that there are trials involving Student Solicitors and Defense Advisors who are closely involved with investigating the cases. Members of the Patterson Court Judicial Board are drawn from Patterson Court organizations. Jeffries serves as the advisor for the Patterson Court Judicial Board, so he is involved in deciding whether a violation should be categorized as organizational or individual.

Determining the Nature of a Case:

Principles over Wording

What constitutes an Honor Code violation versus a Code of Responsibility violation can be confusing to many students. Jeffries noted that, indeed, a "gray area" exists when it comes to distinguishing cases as Honor Code or Code of Responsibility violations. Therefore, he pointed out that "we look at each case individually. We look at all of the factors that surround the situation and the incident."

Perhaps what contributes to this gray area is the fact that the first section of the Code of Responsibility emphasizes the importance of integrity, a concept many might associate with the Honor Code. This section following the preamble of the Code of Responsibility states: "Acts of basic dishonesty, while not dealt with in the Honor Code, may be dealt with by the Honor Council. It is, therefore, the responsibility of teacher, administrator and student to create a climate at Davidson which encourages learning and the developing of relationships characterized by integrity. Such a climate requires personal discipline and scholarly integrity."

Epes concurred that "gray areas were probably inevitable" in the two Codes. "We weren't trying to emulate the corpus of jurisprudence," he said. "This is not a court system. It's a set of principles."