This seemed a hot discussion premise last class, so I shall put my two cents in.
For the Honor Code to be coercive it would have to limit or restrict our freedoms in some way. Signing it does not invoke some magical force that constantly represses you, so obviously there is no physical coercion. Nor does it necessarily threaten through punishment, for were one to, say, steal a laptop and get caught, I would expect that most colleges would expel or condemn that student and legal action to be taken, regardless of whether an honor code were signed or not. And even including the repercussions (going before the honor council), students still have the same freedoms to lie, cheat, and steal as they did pre-signing, now they merely have new repercussions to consider.
I do, however, acknowledge the argument that freedom can be hindered on a social and psychological level; the act of signing a contract is regarded as binding despite physically being no more than putting an ink pattern on paper, and our society has emphasized this action (with contracts, credit cards, etc.) to the extent that a signature seems to have taken on connotations both of trust and of identity. Trust is a necessary component, since if everyone were willing to violate signed contracts, the action would lose its meaning (we have legal repercussions in place to discourage such). Identity too is a factor because it is one's name presented in one's own style, and thus requires a degree of personal involvement with social consequences for violation. Thus, even if one were certain to not be caught violating the code, a student may choose not to due to psychological, cultural, and social baggage within that students own mind, and thus be limited in free-will and choice.
Now, to determine whether these non-physical factors are truly sufficiently influential to be considered coercive requires answering a myriad of philosophical questions: How closely are freedom and identity interrelated? Is objective restriction necessary to limit freedom or do subjective influences suffice? If one can unconsciously or unwittingly violate a restriction, does this make him free, or do actions have to stem from conscious, intentionally choices to be considered freely-made actions? What is the optimal semantic approach to the word freedom?
Returning to my own opinion, I think the honor code is not coercive because I think we have the choice to consciously, intentionally break the code whenever we want, but we consciously choose not to break it due to having an understanding of the consequences and benefits of such actions. To me this is sufficient to make us free in this context.
Undoubtedly there are people who disagree with me. What do you all think?
I think you are right in regarding students here as "free." I am actually reading an excerpt for a sociology class that deals with freedom and it has some good things to say on the topic: "The freedom to determine our loyalties and priorities [...] is a particularly important liberty which we have reason to recognize, value, and defend. The existence of choice does not, of course, indicate that there are no constraints restricting choice." So when we say "freedom," I don't think we mean actual unbridled, infinite possibility ("pure freedom" maybe?), but instead we do still consider freedom within certain limits. So although our college choices might have been "limited" practically by the proximity to Memphis or by the pressure of our parents, within these limits most, if not all, students had choices to make for coming here. And part of choosing to go here is choosing to sign the honor code and follow it, just like going here requires of you to go to enough classes or fulfill academic requirements.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry. The book is "Identity and Violence:
ReplyDeleteSen, Amartya. Identity and Violence. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &, 2006. (page 5)
I believe that the Honor Code can be argued a coercive thing, in that by signing it we are (yes, somewhat freely) entering into a social system which holds itself, and subsequently ourselves within it, to an openly recognized, higher moral standard than other educational institutions without such a code in place. It is true that most of us do choose, without too many external pressures, whether or not to attend a college with an Honor Code. The Rhodes Honor Code is a comforting idea to those who, in a word, honor it. We are, as free, rational agents, capable at any time of violating the Honor Code, yet it is the morally coercive quality of the code which causes many of us to refrain and to act in a way which complies with the high moral standard universalized within the Rhodes community. By signing the Honor Code we are pledging ourselves to abide by rules which will at some point in our college careers be very difficult to follow and tempting to disregard. It becomes a situation of moral coercion when we find ourselves in those situations and are faced with the moral weight we feel to act in ways contrary to what we may find easiest or even the most appealing.
ReplyDeleteThe system of reward and punishment can apply to most anything. I could argue that the only real reason that I do not steal candy from small children is because of my fear of punishment. Similar to the honor code example, I am tempted to take the candy and it is difficult to restrain from breaking the law. However, in reality, I do not steal candy from children, because as a rational being I have an idea of morality and understand that stealing from a defenseless child is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis conclusion was not reached solely from respect of the law but from my own perception of morality, as well. Therefore, by freely signing the honor code, I also acknowledge that I am in agreement with what is written and that I freely agree to obey it. I do not agree because of some implicit and overbearing force that threatens punishment. I agree because I have freely signed a moral contract with witch I am in agreement.
Last class period I tried to determine if the honor code was coercive or not; coercive in the fact that it hinders our freedom in some way. After reading this post and reflecting on others’ comments, I agree in that the honor code is not coercive. It is not physically coercive in that there’s no physical force from stopping us from lying or cheating. In fact we have the same freedom to lie and cheat before we signed the code in the first place. Your points on the physiological burdens it would place on someone who violates the honor code are interesting. That person, having committed an action against the honor code and doesn’t get caught, has potential to feel guilty and an outsider among a community of people. I don’t think that the honor code is coercive, but it’s more of a confirmation of identity; that choosing to attend this college is also choosing to sign the honor code. This signing confirms that we are all honorable people, and seeing the honor code this way doesn’t make it coercive.
ReplyDelete