Clinging to tradition

Today's Cavalier Daily reports on the research conducted into the origins and history of the Honor System by Coy Barefoot, which originally appeared in the Spring 2008 issue of the University of Virginia Magazine (link includes original article and video). As such, the CD article isn't exactly breaking news, although it's well worth the read.

Barefoot's research raises some interesting questions about the traditional narrative we usually tell about Honor's inception and development. For example, he argues that the 1840 murder of a professor likely had little or nothing to do with the system's creation, contrary to popular belief. But what really stands out in the CD article is the lengths some students go in defending the story they know.

Outgoing Honor Committee Chair Ben Cooper told the CD, "I think it's debatable. If you look at the timeline and look at what [Barefoot] said, it's not clear whether or not the shooting was an impetus." The article also quoted Carey Mignerey, a former Committee Chair. He took issue with Barefoot's claim that students likely haven't completely run Honor since its exception. According to the CD article,

Former Committee Chair Carey Mignerey said his understanding of honor's history is largely in line with Barefoot's, but also noted that the term "student-run" can have various interpretations. Even when students are not directly involved in the system, it can still be "student-run," Mignerey said.

"It's hard to say that the system is or is not student-run," Mignerey said. "I think the tradition of students taking accountability has reached back 166 years ... from that perception, the students [have been] the fundamental decision makers."

I'm sure that as former chairs both Cooper and Mignerey have some background in Honor history, but what gives them the gravitas to dispute the careful research of a well-respected historian?

Even more interesting, these sorts of claims aren't limited to the Honor Committee. University Guide Services Chair Emily Whalen also disputed Barefoot's findings about the murder:

"If the murder hadn't happened, when faculty presented idea of honor code, students would have been resistant to it," Whalen said, noting there was already a great deal of tension between students and faculty at the time. "The murder set the scene. It didn't inspire the code."

According to Barefoot's research, professors initiated the Honor pledge in 1842 with the express purpose of curtailing cheating, and no historical documents he found linked the two events in any way.

I presume that all three students quoted in this post simply told the CD what they know or have been told of the events Barefoot researched. But what's less clear is why they firmly stick to that traditional narrative when confronted with compelling, if not absolute, proof to the contrary. I'm a cynic, so I'll offer the cynical explanation: In recent years the Honor System has almost always framed arguments against amending its provisions in terms of how those amendments would violate its cherished traditions that have served students well for over 100 years. Any research questioning that set of assertions casts doubt on the whole defense.

I don't accuse these individuals of lying to protect Honor or anything of the sort. But I do believe that their inability to part from their version of the story reflects a tendency very widespread at this University to cling to tradition for tradition's sake.