Vangelli, Alyssa. “The Honor Code Vote: One Student

Question

Senator’s View.

The following, an excerpt from a student’s account of the introduction of an honor code at her high school,
Lawrence Academy—a private boarding school in Massachusetts—was originally published in the school newsletter
in May 1999.
When the honor code proposal first came under consideration in the spring of 1998, many students, including
members of the Senate, were quick to criticize it. Students did not fully understand the role of an honor code; many
saw it as another rule to obey. The earlier drafts of the honor code included specific penalties for violations of the
honor code, which many students opposed. Students were expected to report or confront a fellow student if they
knew that he/she had cheated, lied, or stolen. Failure to confront or report a student would result in a period of
probation. Students opposed this obligation to take action against another student because they did not see it as their
responsibility. They feared that a mandate to confront peers would create friction and that a subsequent report could
not easily be kept confidential. . . .
After much discussion and debate in class and Senate meetings, the proposal was revised to eliminate any formal
disciplinary actions, although the expectation to take action if one witnessed or knew about any dishonest behavior
still existed. I saw the revision to eliminate all formal penalties in the honor code as a huge step in gaining student
approval, both inside and outside of the Senate.
Another part of the code which received student criticism was a requirement for students to write a pledge of honor
on every piece of work submitted, stating that it was the result of their own thinking and effort. Many students
thought that a pledge of honor for each piece of paper submitted was excessive, but a less frequent pledge of honor
could be a helpful reminder of their responsibilities. This section was revised to require a pledge of honor at the
beginning of each term, affirming that each student will behave honestly and responsibly at all times. In signing this
pledge of honor, students have reminders of these moral values and a responsibility to perform honestly in the school
environment. The revised pledge of honor also helped gain student approval for the honor code.
Another turning point occurred when students began to examine the role of an honor code as something other than a
new set of rules and regulations to obey. In order to understand the purpose of an honor code, the real question was
what type of environment we wanted to live in. As Senate members, we brought this question to class meetings for
discussion. Most responded that we needed an environment where students and faculty could live in complete trust
of one another. Although some did not see a need for an honor code, we, as Senate members, concluded that this
type of environment could only be achieved through first adopting an honor code. Implicit in an honor code is a
belief in the integrity of human beings; it also provides students a clear explanation of the importance of behaving
with the integrity and the expectation that our resulting actions will increase trust and respect in the LA [Lawrence
Academy] community.
As the time to vote for the honor code approached, I and many other student members of the Senate felt pulled in
two directions; we wanted to vote based on our consciences, but we wanted to represent the remaining skeptical and
uncertain views of our fellow students. At the time of voting, most of us took the first option and voted according to
our consciences, which we believed would eventually benefit every member of the school.
I voted in favor because I wanted to go to a school where I could feel comfortable taking an exam without worrying
about someone looking at my paper and where I could be trusted visiting a dorm as a day student. I imagined that
other students and future students of Lawrence would feel the same way.
Although the full acceptance of an honor code will take time, an important process has begun, one which I believe
will ensure moral action and thinking here at Lawrence Academy.

What credentials, education, affiliations, or experience does the information creator have to write on this topic?
What can we tell from the domain of the website where the information has been published?
Purpose
Why was this information created?
Was the information created to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade you?
Is the purpose made clear?

Answer 1

Based on the excerpt, it can be inferred that the information creator, Alyssa Vangelli, is a student at Lawrence Academy. There is no mention of specific credentials, education, affiliations, or experience related to the topic.

The domain of the website where the information has been published is the school newsletter of Lawrence Academy. This suggests that the information is intended for the school community, including students, faculty, and parents.

The purpose of this information appears to be to inform and persuade the reader about the introduction and implementation of an honor code at Lawrence Academy. The author presents her viewpoint on the honor code proposal and shares her perspective on the benefits and importance of having an honor code in the school environment.

The purpose is made clear as the author discusses the initial opposition to the honor code, the revisions made to address student concerns, and the reasons why she and other student members of the Senate voted in favor of the honor code. The author also highlights the goal of creating an environment of trust and integrity at Lawrence Academy.