Discuss this Article

• Student (View Email) on February 18, 2002
  I would be curious to know the answer. >
  
  I find it difficult to believe that you cannot find flaws in the honor code we were all forced to sign. One glaring mistake is the obvious ambiguity left in every single definition. We don't know what we're agreeing to, with every phrase containing 'includes but is not limited to.' A teacher could claim that writing left-handed is dishonest the way the honor code is currently worded.
  The other problem with the error code is that we were forced to sign it on the spot. How can we be expected to 'understand, support, and agree to follow' something we have had next to no time to read. Not only that, but if any of us does not agree with the honor code, we have no choice but to, on threat of suspension, sign our names and be dishonest by claiming to support it. This honor code does nothing but give the teachers more control over what they think should be punished, and force us to say we are okay with it.
  
  Reply
• Mark on February 20, 2002
  Does it matter if we sign. It doesn't have a parent signature therefore making it null and void doesn't it?
  
  Reply
• Catt (View Email) on February 20, 2002
  The process the school followed during the signing of the honor code nullifies all the signatures received. Ms. Wanner, you say that signing of the honor code should hopefully mean more to a student but many students, including myself, only signed this waste of paper so that we would not miss class.This glaring example of hypocracy on the part of the school only serves to demonstrate the administration's lack of consideration for student's feelings and beliefs. When students are required to miss important classes just to stand up for themselves and their academic rights, it only serves to force conformity and silence upon those who will hopefuly be voting and expressing themselves in government later. Also, this honor code stresses the importance of the honor council which will supposivly be protecting student's rights although no student is a part of this council. We did not have a choice or a say in this important piece of our education and therefore, we should not have to live under it.
  Reply
• Lynne Bradley (View Email) on February 21, 2002
  As a parent I am disappointed and discouraged by the handling of the Honor Code fiasco at Blair. Plopping a new Honor Code in front of students and forcing them to sign it without serious and real discussion about what honor and student responsibility mean is a lost opportunity. Merely reiterating the "rules" does not advance student self-discipline. It could have been a great teachable moment for all students, regular and magnet alike, to discuss and learn about honor and integrity.
  
  We should all welcome discussing "honor" and academic and behaviorial responsibility with our children. The "draft" honor code has many good points but, now at our house (with our two Blair students,) we must start the discussion about "must sign" issues as opposed to what integrity means in school as well as in life.
  
  Forcing kids to sign an Honor Code without student input, fair discussion and parental notice is not honorable - as well intentioned as the proponents of the Code or the school administrators may be. You cannot force honor by signing a code - it's a larger and personal commitment to doing the right thing because you, as the student, want to and know what it means to "do the right thing."
  
  Is there a comparable honor code for faculty, administrators and parents - as other stakeholders in this system? Are there also code differences for magnet vs. regular students if CAP or others had the code earlier this school year? And, where was the PTA on all this? We all owe students certain honorable behaviors and respect.
  
  Somewhere around my own 10th grade English class we discussed a quote from Richard Lovelace, a 17th century English Cavalier poet: "I could not love thee, dear, enough - loved I not honor more." Such a quote could be blended into an honor code discussion....it's not too late.
  Reply
• George Koehler (View Email) on February 22, 2002
  I am a student at Blair. I know that I have no intention of cheating on assignments, so I signed the new honor code. However, I have heard that other students did not sign because they did not like the elastic clauses. Clauses like "includes but is not limited to" may sound like a bad idea because they create the possibility that the enforcers (of the honor code) could make up that whatever they want is a violation, and they can punish whoever they want for whatever reason they wants. That is not true. When an elastic clause is used in addition to a list of offenses, only offenses similar to those on the list are included. A decision may still have to be made whether an elastic clause covers a certain offense. Processes like the appeals process in the honor code allow this decision to be made fairly. The argument that we should list every single possible offense instead of using an elastic clause is a weak one. It is impossible to list every single clause. Take the U.S. Constitution as an example. The most famous "elastic clause" allowed Congress to create the national bank, avoiding a patchwork of state banks and the inconvenience of changing banks when you cross a state border. Another elastic clause is in the Bill of Rights. Many provisions of the Bill of Rights protect things like freedom of speech from Congress. However, it is impossible to list all the rights that the people should have. Thus, there is a provision in the Bill of Rights that prevents Congress from intruding on rights retained by the people even though they are not listed in the Constitution. If there is a question as to wether something qualifies as a right under this elastic clause, the fight can be taken to court and the courts can make a ruling on how to interpret the elastic clause of the Bill of Rights. Using elastic clauses is also good for the Blair honor code, just as it is good for the Bill of Rights. One obvious thing not to do during a test is to talk. The honor code also contains provisions for things like using signals in place of talk. However, there are other things that could happen, like positioning papers where they could be seen by other students, or looking at others' papers while walking to the pencil sharpener. All these obscure things are hard to list in the honor code, but they should be included, so that is what the elastic clause is for. Suppose I had to right my own set of rules. Maybe I am administrator of a computer system that has lots of users. I could tell users that stealing passwords and reading the e-mail of others is prohibited. I could also say that using too much processing power for no reason is prohibited. However, I would have trouble listing everything. If I forgot to list attacking a particular user by sending them large amounts of junk e-mail, it's a good thing I included that elastic clause. If I owned a restaurant, the elastic clause would also be helpful. Normally, when you walk into a restaurant, you don't have to read a long list of rules to get in. If you do something stupid, though, you could be required to leave. There is an elastic clause because I don't define exactly what something stupid is. It could be throwing food, hitting a waiter, knocking down chairs... Finally, some people may object to elastic clauses because enforcers can apply them differently to different people for the same offense, which is discriminating. Remember, though, that the Blair honor code, and other similar contracts, is superseded by the law. There are laws on both the county and federal level that limit discrimination. Suppose there was a particular offense not listed in the honor code which could possibly be covered under the elastic clause. (Maybe the students were looking at others' tests while walking to the pencil sharpener.) If several students committed this offense, and they all got punished except for the magnet students, that would be discrimination. The Honors Council probably would not permit this discrimination. If it did, higher levels of administration above the Honors Council would reverse the council's decision. Even if all levels of the school administration allowed the discrimination, the fight could be taken to the courts, which probably would rule that discrimination was illegal, based on past rulings to that effect.
  Reply