HONOR SYSTEM IN AMERICAN COLLEGES 181 



It was under such conditions as these that the honor system was 

 adopted at Princeton about a dozen years ago. It was introduced 

 likewise at Cornell University, at Amherst, Williams and other north- 

 ern colleges. At Princeton it is reported to be still giving satisfaction, 

 although there have been occasional spasms of apparent weakness. 

 In the other institutions named it seems never to have become very 

 deeply rooted. Its maintenance, as well as its introduction, required 

 organization among the students and tact on the part of those whose 

 duty it was to teach and examine. There seems to be a growing feel- 

 ing that the honor system, even if exotic, ought to be encouraged if 

 students can be induced to adopt it; that self-government is the best 

 government if it is only real government. But where no supporting 

 tradition already exists on such a subject it is as hard to make reliable 

 calculations on the stability of student opinion as on the magnitude 

 of political majorities. 



For the introduction of the honor system into any institution of 

 learning, or for its subsequent efficiency, the first essential is the 

 organization of a college court, composed of leading representatives 

 from the most important classes or departments. The efficiency of 

 such a court depends upon the earnestness and watchfulness of a small 

 minority of the student body who are public spirited enough to endure 

 temporary inconvenience and to risk their personal popularity by re- 

 porting those who offend against the laws adopted by the student body. 

 If there are never any indictments there can be no need for a court. 

 Since the college world is not wholly made up of angels, it is abso- 

 lutely certain that offenses will be committed. If nobody is willing 

 to act as prosecutor or complainant the law becomes a dead letter, and 

 the court dies a natural death. But such a court should be organized 

 in every college and its vitality should be tested by actual practise. 

 To its jurisdiction should be committed all cases of crookedness in 

 class or examination or in anything else that affects the welfare of the 

 student body. If a vouns; man shows to his fellow-students that he 

 is dishonest outside of the class-room, it is not necessary that the en- 

 forcement of the honor system should be limited to matters connected 

 with written ■ examinations. The voice of the student body should 

 be heard even if it be not always judicial. The student court should 

 indeed not be a court of last resort. Its rulings should be subject to 

 examination by an appellate court consisting of the president and a 

 committee of the faculty of the institution. The right of appeal to 

 this supreme court should never be yielded, but such appeal should not 

 be demanded unless strong reasons for it can be established. 



Even if a good student court has been organized, the maintenance 

 of the honor system may be and often is nullified by the unwillingness 

 of students to inform against the violators of law. This indeed is the 

 greatest difficulty to be overcome in practise. A student whose mental 



