borne in mind is that human character grows in vice as well as virtue by what it feeds on. The man who cheats in an examination, by the very fact that he has cheated, makes his possibilities for evil greater. Furthermore, the man who cheats in an honor system does an act the effects of which are more harmful to him than if he had cheated in an examination conducted under the monitor system. It is, therefore, improper for a law faculty to adopt an honor system, even though they be convinced that there will be no more cheating under that system than under the monitor system; they must be convinced that there will be much less cheating.

Lastly, we must remember that the duty to see that the examinations are so conducted that men who attempt to cheat are eliminated from the school is the duty of the faculty or the executive organization of the school, and that, on the other hand, it is not a duty of the student, unless he voluntarily assumes it. This means that if any system of student reporting, or student reporting and punishment, for violation of the rules, is put in force as part of the honor system adopted, the faculty has no right to require any student to become part of the police machinery, or permit his fellow students to require him to become a part of that machinery, without his consent. Of course, this consent may be made a condition of matriculation.

Practically, the three principles just enunciated mean that the honor system should not be adopted unless the overwhelming sentiment of the student body is in favor of it, unless the faculty are convinced that less cheating will occur under it than under any monitor system that they can devise, and that violations of the system will be detected with reasonable certainty and the violators eliminated. I know of no better method of

determining whether or not these conditions will exist than by inquiring among students of known high character, who are in touch with, and have an influence over a large number of their fellow students.

A much more interesting point is raised by the question: What is the kind of school in which the conditions which warrant the adoption of the honor system are apt to be found? My observations lead me to believe that three facts must tend to exist if I may put it that way.

First, the student body must, on the whole, be drawn from those classes in the community which understand each. other's conditions and points of view. This, of course, is only another way of saying that the students must be a homogeneous body. You cannot make a homogeneous body from professional students drawn from different classes in our body politic, and who have little knowledge of, and less sympathy with, one another.

In the second place, the class or classes from which the student body is drawn must be those which have distinct feelings of responsibility for government. Take an illustration: A school drawing largely from what is popularly called the "400," of our large cities, which is merely another way of stating that the student body is recruited from the upper crust of a purely commercial society, or rather a school in which this class of students forms, though perhaps a small, nevertheless an influential, body, is not a school in which there is likely to develop a strong desire for the honor system. In such a school to the most prominent students it will be a bore. For such a desire involves embryo governmental instincts, and the plutocratic top of a commercial society has rarely in the world's history developed such an instinct, and

certainly has not developed it in the United States. Individually, with few exceptions, students drawn from the socalled upper class of our large cities are fine men; but almost without exception they either take no interest in the honor system, or are opposed to it, because they distrust the moral stamina of all classes except their own, and are unwilling to assume the responsibility and undertake the trouble involved in the operation of the honor system.

On the other hand, if the class from which the student body is drawn is largely a democracy more or less connected with the soil-that is, farmers and those tradesmen who deal with farmers or if the student body is recruited from a landed aristocracy, then you have conditions which will not only create a demand for the honor system from the student body, but will cause it to be attended with the best possible results. The success which I understand has attended the adoption of the system in some Western schools, and the unqualified success in the University of Virginia, tend, I think, to prove the correctness of this observation.

In the third place, if the school contains a considerable body of students. drawn from those classes who are striving to obtain or have just obtained a foothold in a commercial society, the honor system will be, I believe, unworkable. Men who are fighting a desperate economic battle in large cities under conditions of fierce competition do not as a rule develop a sensitive morality, and the children of the first generation rise in that respect little above their fathers. Take any of us who are connected with law schools in large cities. Let us páss in mental review the students in our respective schools in whose morality we have not perfect confidence, or the men whom in the past we have eliminated

for undesirable acts indicating low moral standards, and I shall be much mistaken if each one of us will not find that the majority of such students are drawn from the class I have indicated.

All will admit that the honor system, throwing, as it does, moral responsibility on the individual, will tend to elevate him, if he is strong enough to bear it. It will in like manner do good to the school, if conditions are right—if the students are willing to take up and carry the responsibility involved. But my feeling is that in the present social and economic conditions of our country it is unlikely that the system will be adopted, or, if adopted, prove beneficial in schools drawing mainly from our larger cities. On the other hand, I do think that in the older institutions of the South, and in our Western state universities, we may expect the adoption of the system with beneficial results.

A

The Honor System

By WILLIAM MINOR LILE Dean, University of Virginia Law School

FEW years ago, in a questionnaire from a distinguished law teacher, then, as now, I believe, an officer of your association, appeared the question: "Do you believe in the honor system?" My reply was: "Yes; as I do in the Christian religion."

I am here, on your invitation, to show cause for this transcendent faith.

Those of us, born, as it were, into the honor system, who have known no other, and who have lived with it and under it since the callow days of the primary school, have difficulty in realizing that there exists among intelligent educators skepticism as to its genuineness and ef

ficiency. But I am assured that such skepticism does prevail, and widely, among the members of your association. My address has been prepared with this fact prominently in mind. This mental attitude will account for the nature of my treatment of the theme.

In discussions of the honor system among those not familiar with it, confusion of thought has arisen from failure to distinguish between the desirability of the system, and its practicability under conditions prevailing in particular schools or localities.

The end sought is surely most desirable; but, when the system seeks admission to new fields, it is halted by the pertinent inquiry, Is it practicable? The truth probably is that under conditions prevailing in many educational institutions the system is not immediately practicable. The truth certainly is that in many other institutions its practicability has been demonstrated.

Further and greater confusion has resulted from ignorance of what the system really is. There has come to my observation no objection or criticism that did not originate in a colossal and appalling ignorance of the system itself.

To clear the atmosphere, then, and to supply the facts for the general discussion which I understand is to follow, let me explain, as briefly as I may, something of the origin, nature, operation, and results of the honor system at its birthplace, the University of Virginia. I say birthplace, because, so far as my information goes, this system at the time of its institution had no precedent in other educational establishments. While it has some of the features of Dr. Arnold's method at Rugby, it differs widely from that method. As pupil of the high school, as academical and professional student, and as teacher, I have lived in close personal contact with the honor

system for more than half of my life. This experience warrants the acceptance of my testimony as that of a qualified witness. Whether that of a biased or a deluded one you must determine.

For some years after the establishment of the University, in 1819, honesty in the written examinations was sought to be secured by the surveillance of an examining committee. The result was doubtless unsatisfactory, for, in 1842, Prof. Henry St. George Tucker, father of the late distinguished John Randolph Tucker, for many years dean of the Law School of Washington and Lee University, and grandfather of the latter's distinguished son, Harry St. George Tucker -Prof. Tucker being at that time sole professor of law-offered, and the faculty adopted, the following resolution, namely:

"Resolved, That in all future written examinations for distinction and other honors of the University, each candidate shall attach to the written answer presented by him, on such examination, a certificate in the following words: 'I, A. B., do hereby certify on honor that I have derived no assistance during the time of this examination from any source whatever, whether oral or written or in print, in giving the above answers.'"

This was the genesis of the honor system at the University. Later the pledge was amended so as to preclude the giving as well as the receiving of assistanceand in this amended form it has been retained to the present day. The system has been in continuous operation since, and with results so satisfactory as to render it, in the opinion of the faculty and friends of the University, the most valuable asset that the institution possesses. Some of these results will appear in the development of the theme.

Now as to the nature and operation of the system:

From the moment of his matriculation, every student is presumed by the faculty and by his fellows to be a man of honor

and worthy of their trust. If not already a disciple of the system-as, from circumstances to be mentioned presently, many freshmen are he learns within a few days that he has become a member of a miniature, self-governing community, with but one rule of conduct, and that is the exercise of absolute candor and honesty in all of his relations with the body politic and its members. This body regards itself as an association of gentlemen, the student members of which are all contestants for the favors, privileges, and honors of the University. It considers that these are to be attained by honest effort only, and that any member who essays to win by dishonest methods is playing the game unfairly, and should be eliminated at once from further participation in the contest.

Originally, the system dealt only with breaches of the pledge appended to the written examination. In the course of time, and by evolution of student public opinion, its scope has gradually widened, until at the present time it embraces any offense seriously involving the student's honor. Its latest conquest has been in the field of athletic sport-condemning, as it does, participation in athletic contests when the player is conscious of disqualification under the rules of amateur sportsmanship. The student makes no pledge in advance. His implied obligation does not include obedience to University ordinances, nor to faculty regulations. All of these he may violate without infraction of the honor system, provided his offense does not involve a lie or a cheat, nor otherwise a breach of faith. There are other offenses punished by the student body, such as hazingonly one instance of which, by the way, has occurred within the memory of the oldest inhabitant-and wanton destruction of, or injury to, University property. But these and like offenses are dealt

with under the system of self-government-itself a reflex of the honor system

rather than under the honor system proper.

Coming back to our raw freshman, he early learns not only the nature of his obligations under the system, but its penalties. He becomes conscious that its violation is a breach of trust in a double sense-toward the constituted authorities of the University, and toward his fellow classmen and that its penalties. are short, sharp, and severe. Conviction carries with it immediate expulsion from the University by the student body, and a disgrace that follows the delinquent for the remainder of his life. As between conviction of cheating on examination, and of theft in the police court, the average student would find the choice an embarrassing one. Nor does public opinion in Virginia, and in most parts of the South, distinguish between the two.

If the penalty seems severe, we must not forget the lie and the breach of faith that accompany the offense. The mere act of cheating is merged in the graver offenses of falsehood and betrayal of trust. The first may, conceivably, be committed on the spur of the moment; but signature to the pledge afterwards. makes the act a deliberate falsehood.

Some account of the actual methods of holding examinations under the system may be not without interest.

These examinations are held in one place, where all the candidates are assembled, and no examination may be written elsewhere. Logically, of course, the system would permit each student to select any convenient place, even his own bedroom, for the purpose. But, as society demands that its young women shall be chaperoned, rather to preclude the suspicion or the, appearance of evil than from the fear of it, so, to avoid exposing the student to unnecessary temptation,

and to preclude suspicion on the part of his fellows, all candidates prepare their examinations in the same room, and during the same hours. In this room there are no monitors, student committees, nor other detective machinery. The professor in charge considers himself on duty, so long as the examination is in progress, but his function is rather as chairman of the assembly. He is in and out of the room at irregular intervals, as suits his convenience. His presence from time to time is not only a necessary part of the proceeding, but it testifies his interest in the occasion, and lends it added dignity. His presence serves the further purpose of clearing up those obscurities that will creep into his questions, how soever carefully set. But neither in theory nor in practice does he play the rôle of detective. Such a rôle would in itself be a flagrant violation of the system, and would be resented by the student body with indignant protest.

As the professor is at liberty to leave the room at pleasure, so the students freely exercise the same privilege. But, since every student appreciates the delicacy of the situation, he is careful not to incur the risk of criticism by going unaccompanied to his room, or absenting himself for any considerable period from the observation of his fellows. The average student would as little think of going to his chambers without a companion, as a high-bred daughter of society would visit, unchaperoned, the apartments of her bachelor suitor. Indeed, I know nothing with which one may more aptly compare the cleanness and delicate decorum exacted of its subjects by the honor system than that which the best society demands of its

women.

At the end of his examination paper each student appends the prescribed pledge, and deposits the paper upon the

professor's desk. In thus passing from the possession of the student into the hands of the professor, the paper passes out of the guardianship and jurisdiction. of the student body-subject, however, to challenge. The paper is, of course, read and graded by the professor alone.

This brings us to the administrative side of the honor system-the procedure and punishment, in case of violation of its unwritten code.

The fundamental concept of the system is that it is a student code, interpreted and administered exclusively by the student body. To borrow the language of the University catalogue, "it imposes no burden on the faculty. Experience has shown that the students themselves are its sternest guardians and executors." Feeling intense pride in this exercise of the governmental function, they are keenly jealous of any interference with their prerogatives on the part of the faculty. The consequence is that from the inception of the system, in 1842, to the present time, there is no trace, either on the faculty records or in the memory of its oldest member, of faculty action against a student for a violation of the honor system.

Under the system as it prevails at the University of Virginia, any student who observes another cheating on examination, or otherwise violating the code of honor, is under a moral obligation to his fellows to report the circumstance promptly to such members of his class as he may desire to call in consultation. This self-constituted committee makes a secret investigation of the circumstances. If this inquisition seems to develop a prima facie case, the committee calls upon the suspected student for an explanation. Should this explanation prove satisfactory, there is an end of the case. Should the explanation be not satisfactory, the accused is given the choice of