President's Response to
Appeal
Spring
1994
Office of the President
To: Alexandra Ornston and John Lithgow ......Co-Chairs, Honor Council
From: Tom Kessinger
Response to the appeal bv Sabrina, Kelley and Jill
Haverford College's Honor Code is the product of nearly 100
years of student initiative, experimentation, testing, and
adaptation. Throughout, students have provided leadership and have
been responsible, with oversight from the College's administration,
for the operation of the Code, including the handling of violations
when they occurred. .
Over the years the academic portion of the Honor Code has changed
relatively littie. It started with a petition not to have proctors in
"examination rooms" in 1897. It reached its logical conclusion in
1963 when students argued successfully that the Code should be
extended to establish the system of self-scheduled exams that is now
the most thoroughgoing example of what a climate of trust allows us
to accomplish. . In
contrast, the social portion of the Honor Code is younger and has
undergone some fundamental transformations. It came into existence
only in the 1930s and through the mid-1960s was concerned exciusively
with rules governing the entertainment of women on campus by the all
male student body. Change came as the size and composition of the
student body began to change. In the late 1960s the administration
and Board of Managers decided to increase the size of the College, to
make a conscious effort to increase the representation of minority
students at Haverford, and to increase academic and dormitory
exchanges with Bryn Mawr College. The social portion of the Honor
Code as we know it today grew out of efforts led by students of color
and Bryn Mawr students living at Haverford in 1971-72. They
introduced the notion of confrontations whereby members of the
community might "point out how Haverford's reality differs from its
stated ideals, and that these ideais might be insufficient for a
diverse community." .
The substantive paragraphs of the introduction to the current
Honor Code articulate today's rendering of these concerns.
The Honor Code depends for its effective operation on both our
personal concern for each other and our collective concern for the
maintenance of the community standards reflected in the Code. Both
concerns are central to the functioning of the Code, and both have
meaning only as they form the basis for the conduct of our daily
lives. The Code makes it possible for members of a diverse student
body to live together, interact, and learn from one another in
ways that protect both personal freedom and community standards.
It makes it possible for a climate of trust, concern and respect
to exist among us, a climate conducive to learning and growing,
and one without which our commullity would soon deteriorate.
In order to keep the atmosphere of trust, concern and
respect, we must be willing to face situations which may be
uncomfortable. We cannot expect to feel at ease when confronting
another student about his/her actions. But even if difficult, we
must take upon ourselves individually the responsibilities stated
in the Code, or be ourselves in violation of the Code because of
our failure to act.
All Haverford students formally commit themselves to the Honor
Code when they matriculate. Assuming the Code is ratified each year,
they must continue to accept it as a condition of enrollment. In this
sense, Haverford College is what Quakers and others have referred to
as an "intentional community." We are more than a group of people who
have gathered here for educational purposes. 'The community" at
Haverford is a group of people, however diverse, differentiated or
divided, who have voluntarily pledged themselves to standards, goals
and ideals embodied in the Honor Code -- standards, goals and ideals,
I should add, that are higher and more ambitious than those of the
so-called "real world." Surely this is a more meaningful conception
of community than the utopian sense of oneness and uniformity that
exists for some as an expectation. This mind-set inevitably leads to
disillusionment or disaffection in the face of the realities of life
in a campus society in which various groups, ascriptive and
voluntary, exist and play an important role for many. . Being part of this intentional
community has burdens. We are not only responsible for our own
conduct, we are responsible for the conduct of each other-- a very
unfashionable ideal. It also has costs. We surrender the right to say
or do whatever we want without taking responsibility for its effect
on others. We surrender the right to remain silent when we are aware
of something we think is wrong even if it may not violate the Honor
Code. And finally, we surrender the right to shirk constructive,
meaningful dialogue. The section of the Honor Code relating to social
concerns reads as follows:
Our social relationships should be based on mutual respect and
concern. We must consider how our words and actions may affect the
sense of acceptance essential to an individual's or group's
participation in the community. We strive to foster an environment
which genuinely encourages respectful espression of values rather
than unproductlve self-censorship. Upon encountering actions or
values which we find degrading to ourselves and to others, we
should feel comfortable initiating dialogue with the mutual goal
of increasing our understanding of each other.
No case in my six years at Haverford has involved the very
essence of the Code so fully and directly as the trial examining the
possible violations of the social Honor Code by Charlie and by
Sabrina, Kelley and Jill. In the very best tradition of the Code's
long history, the jury labored rigorously and conscientiously with
important and difficult questions. These include freedom of speech,
self-censorship political correctness, the meaning of responsible
discourse, and the possibilities and diifficulties inherent in
dialogue about differences. I commend the members of jury for their
courage, their honesty and their hard and reflective work.
. The Honor Code states
that a student may appeal a decision "on either substantive or
procedural grounds." Because Sabrina, Kelley and Jill appealed the
finding that they were in violation of the Honor Code, I met the jury
in accordance with procedures to obtain a clear understanding of the
deliberations and reasoning that yielded that result. Time was also
devoted to understanding the finding of non-violation against
Charlie, even though that decision is not subject to further
review. . My approach
in considering the appeal has been broad and "inclusive" rather than
specific or focused. In terms of events and activities, I have taken
into account Charlie's posting on the Comment Board, the ensuing
exchanges between Charlie and other students, and the interactions
between Charlie and Sabrina, Kelley and Jill as reported in the trial
documents. In a similarly broad approach, I have taken as my
framework the overall statement of purpose of the Honor Code (the
first quotation in bold) and not just the section on social concerns
(the second quotation). Because of the emphasis in these passages on
the balance of concerns and objectives, I have taken them in their
entirety rather than focusing on particular words, phrases or
sentences. . The Jury
concluded that Sabrina, Kelley, and Jill violated the Honor Code by
failing to initiate dialogue with Charlie with the mutual goal of
increasing their understanding of each other (HC III B, last
sentence) and by failing to try to understand Charlie's standards and
values in order to avoid self-righteousness or the appearance of
moral superiority (HC IV A, first sentence) before requesting that
this matter be brought before Honor Council.</DD>
After meeting with the appellants, discussions with the jury,
consultation with the Dean of the College, and considerable
reflection, I have decided to accept Sabrina, Kelley and Jill's
appeal with respect to the absence of advice, counsel, or precedent
as to what constitutes a "proper confrontation." . We should not place the burden of
responsibility for an effective dialogue on the party that feels
their "sense of acceptance essential to an individual's or group's
participation in the community" has been questioned. To do so is not
consistent with the rationale and purpose of the Honor Code, even
though justification might be found in specific words and passages.
It also has a potentially chilling effect on the freedom of
expression of those most directly affected. If they are silenced, who
will speak out? It is unjust to find the three women in violation
while having found that Charlie bears no responsibility for the
impact of his statement and subsequent responses to comments on the
Comment Board. This holds true even if it is established that he
"considered" the possible impact of his words and therefore met the
"letter" of the Code. .
But that is not the end of it. I have stated that this case goes
to the essence of the Honor Code to an extent not even approximated
by any other with which I am familiar. There are many questions with
which we must grapple. As members in this intentional community we
have accepted some limits on our personal freedom as necessary for
its sustenance. But, as the Code correctly stresses, we must avoid
self censorship. How do we balance these concerns? Where are the
boundaries? What are the community standards for responsible free
speech? How can we have more conversation about issues of immediate
concern and meaning for us? We know that ideas themselves can be
offensive. How can we frame discussions in such a way that open
dialogue about them will make an effective interaction possible, and
not compound a sense of hurt or alienation for either party to the
conversation? When an individual or group feels that their sense of
acceptance in the campus community has been challenged, to whom
should they turn for help with constructing a debate while and after
the emotions of hurt, anger and frustration are experienced? And what
about the rest of us? When we witness exchanges which challenge
community standards, what is our responsibility? .
The Code makes it possible for members of a diverse student
body to live together, interact and learn from one another in ways
that protect both personal freedom and community standards. It
makes it possible for a climate of trust, concern and respect to
exist among us, a climate conducive to learning and growing, one
without which our community would soon deteriorate.
Let us use our discussion about this case and the issues it
raises as a opportunity to move the community forward. It is an
opportunity we cannot afford to waste.
[home - honor
code - abstracts
- minutes
- council members
- contact honor council - haverford
college]
Send comments, problems, or suggestions to:
code@haverford.edu
Last Revised: April 5, 1999.