Let me say in the beginning that it is not my intention in writing this article to have any student change his mind in regard to the Honor System as it now exists. It is my desire to express my feelings and to make an explanation for the stand that I have taken in regard to the system.
The Honor System, as explained by a member of the faculty, means that the teacher may come into the class room, put the examination on the board and then leave the room. The student at the end of the examination is to sign the following pledge: “I have neither given nor received aid on this examination; neither have I seen any other student giving or receiving aid.”
If the student has given, received or seen anyone give or receive, he is to change the worlds of the pledge so as to indicate such.
Very few people have ever questioned the first clause of this pledge. A person can conscientiously sign his name to that part of the pledge because he knows for a certainty whether he had heated. But can he be sure about the latter cause? When a student’s eyes wander toward the paper on the one at his side, does that mean that he is receiving aid? Is it my duty to report him? If I should think a person was cheating and report him, and then he prove to be innocent, would his character be questioned? Would my character be questioned? These are a few of the many questions that arise when one considers the latter clause of the pledge.
Sometimes when a student is really thinking, he will let his eyes wander about over the room, or perhaps set them toward some object. In reality, he is not seeing the things before his eyes; but if the person sitting near him notices his eyes set toward the peper of another student, he is sure to believe that cheating is taking place. I a case of this kind it is not fair to either the one doing the reporting or to the reported ot have ha ltter clause in the pledge. Nine of 10 times the person suspected of cheating would be guilty of dishonesty, but perhaps the tenth person would be innocent. Let him be the one to say whether he has cheated. In all probability, if he has received aid, he will deny the fact. In a case of thatkind, if the accused has a better reputation than the accuser, the latter will be branded as untruthful.
As an illustration, I will give a true occurrence which took place recently.A student who was held as one of the finest, most honest, Christian gentlemen of the entire student body last year was accused of cheating by a girl of less important position. The minute I heard the report, I felt angry toward the girl. I could not believe her because I had more confidence in the person she was accusing than I had in her. There was no other person to corroborate her accusation. This year the young man in question has advanced to a position of honor. His word would probably stand with that of even the members of the faculty. But since school has opened this year, I have seen him doing what I thought was cheating. I am not sure that he cheated, yet it appeared to be so. If I had reported him, and if I had signed the pledge as it now stands, I would have been forced to say that in all probability he had cheated. I might have reported an innocent person. Even if he is guilty, I can only accuse him. I have no other person by whom I can prove that he has been dishonest this year. Then if I make an accusation against him, I will be giving the world a chance to question his character and also mine.
It is my desire to help promote honesty, honor, truthfulness and all like virtues; but I cannot attach my name to a questionable clause that may be the means of blotting the name of some innocent person. I care not how many questions one may ask me to answer in a pledge, in regard to my own honesty, but let my fellowman speak for his own heart. The clause in question is absolutely to strict in its present form to have the moral support of all the people. It should be amended or ended. At any rate, give a person freedom of conscience.
--Geo. T. Greenway
From page 2 of The Hill Top, the student newspaper from Mars Hill College, Monday, Nov. 8, 1926
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2017236934/1926-11-08/ed-1/seq-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment