I wasted a column last week on the somewhat trivial subject of donuts, so this week I will tackle a more interesting question, “What is wrong with the honor system?”

The easy answer, and the one that I often hear is, “Nothing is wrong with the honor system – at least, nothing is more wrong than it was before.” I tend to disagree. I think there are some major problems with the honor system, and that if we don’t address them soon, they will begin to threaten our way of life.

Like most of our student-governance issues, the current honor system problems have their roots in fateful choices made by students of the past. Once upon a time, the honor system was simply an informal code of conduct. In the words of the 1970-‘71 little t editors, “Because one of the main benefits of the Honor System is a vast freedom from rules, attempts to state it explicitly are futile. Just respect the rights of others and expect them to respect yours.”

However, by the early 70’s, a phrase had already begun circulating through the undergraduate population that would change the honor system forever. That phrase was “unfair advantage” and by 1980, our indefinable honor code had an explicit characterization, “No one shall take unfair advantage of any member of the Caltech community.”

Armed with a universal rule they could apply to a wide variety of situations, the Board of Control of the 1970’s began to hear more cases of a non-academic nature. The honor system had always been meant to apply to all of student conduct, but before the concept of “unfair advantage”, the BoC had a difficult time dealing with any issues more complex than simple cheating or stealing.

However, the BoC was not prepared for the increased caseload. In 1970, a BoC Rep wrote to the Tech, “The Board finds itself faced with an increased number of such ‘violations’ and therefore with the dilemma of either ignoring them or having its efficiency threatened by having to call weekly case meetings.”

Over time, the BoC dealt with fewer and fewer of the interpersonal issues and those neglected responsibilities fell to the Deans office. Unfortunately, when issues go to administrators, the spirit of self-governance is lost, and most students who find themselves in front of the Dean for stealing Daihatsus or pirating music feel more like they are being disciplined and less like they are part of an honor system.

We recently tried to put students back into the process by creating the CRC, but that innovation has been creating problems of its own. The CRC has created an atmosphere where students are encouraged to turn their friends in to escape punishment. The BoC encourages this as well, but the problem is worse with the CRC because while most students can rationalize turning in students to the BoC for their own good, ratting out your friends to the CRC usually comes from an “everyone for themselves” attitude.

Our honor system is being clouded by disciplinary motives and we are rapidly losing sight of the community atmosphere the honor system is supposed to foster. To get an idea of how that would work, we can look at how things were before “unfair advantage” and long before the CRC.

I’ve been looking a lot at 1970, so let’s take another incident from that year. On January 16, 1970, a group of Pageboys attempted to shower the Tech editor after he failed to print one of their letters. In the process, they broke his umbrella. This incident was not handled by the BoC, the Deans, or the MOSH; It came before the IHC. After interviewing many witnesses, the Presidents of the seven houses voted unanimously to pass a resolution regarding showering and to fine the aggressors $7.50, the cost of the umbrella.

Nowadays, disciplinary issues of that nature never come before the IHC, and I’m sure many would question the House Presidents’ authority to impose a fine on individual students. However, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that should be happening more often.

In the 1892 catalog for Throop Polytechnic Institute it was written, “The discipline of the institution will constantly keep in mind the development of self-governing citizens, self-respecting, law-abiding men and women. The helpfulness of the ever-watchful friend will take the place of the educational police officer.”

When we place too much power in the hands of the BoC, the CRC, or in Student Affairs, we are choosing police officers over watchful friends. No one group should have a monopoly on student discipline. It is sometimes more effective to hear things from your friends than from an administrator.

It makes sense that all suspected academic cheating should go to the BoC, but do all other instances of unfair advantage need to be reported? If something can be resolved between friends, shouldn’t they do so? If a problem can stay within an alley, a House, or between two Houses, is there any reason for other people to get involved?

We may have come up with an all-encompassing phrase to describe our honor code, but that doesn’t mean we need a monolithic system to deal with violations. The strength of an honor system comes from each individual policing himself and having the authority to watch over his peers. We have forgotten this crucial aspect of our honor system and it is weakening our student community.

The BoC and the CRC are long overdue to take a careful look at their policies and procedures, but most importantly, every member of the Caltech community needs to look more carefully at themselves and those around them. Maintaining the honor system has never been easy, but the more people that are helping, the easier it will be.