Editors’ Note: This story was updated on Dec. 15 to accurately represent Sam Cook’s thoughts on the future of the Honor System.

At an Executive Committee meeting on Nov. 10, EC Representative Zane Openshaw, ’27L, proposed a temporary semi-codification of the Honor System. He said the current system is ineffective because of a lack of clarity on what constitutes a violation of community trust.

Openshaw referenced a semi-codification system used by the university in 1930 that worked under previous EC President Lewis Powell. Powell graduated from Washington and Lee’s law school in 1931 and later became a Supreme Court justice. According to Openshaw’s correspondence, this semi-codification system codified lying, cheating and stealing as honor violations, to the extent that they were violations of the community’s trust.

Emerging in the mid-1840s, the Honor System evolved into a student-led tradition when the student body established the Executive Committee in 1905 to fully oversee its administration, according to Washington and Lee University’s website.

According to the last White Book survey, the majority of students believe the honor system extends beyond the classroom, said EC President Meaghan Endres, ’26. This belief is rooted in the White Book, which states that “any breach of the community’s trust is considered an Honor Violation.” That’s why the community assumes dishonest academic behavior, like lying, is included, Endres said.

EC Representative Patrick Burr, ’26L, said he’s worried that if the EC codified lying, cheating and stealing, other actions violating the community’s trust may be deemed less significant. Codifying specific instances of honor violations would also strip away nuance, making situations black and white, said EC Representative Julian Beaujeu-Dufour, ’26.

At the EC meeting on Nov. 17, Sam Cook, ’27, came before the EC to voice his opinion. He said he was against codifying the Honor System because, to him, it meant imposing the “values of the current student body onto the future student body.” He said he views the Honor System as a living social contract: not a system forced on students but standards they choose to set for themselves. Turning a living system into a legal code undermines student self-governance, Cook said.

Instead of codification, each EC representative could publish their definition of what “community trust” is on the EC website, Cook proposed. He said anyone running for election to student office should submit their definition alongside their speeches, with the exception of first-year candidates.

All EC representatives bring their definition of what constitutes a violation of the community’s trust into the room when they evaluate cases, Cook said. While it may be uncomfortable for EC representatives to have their opinions published and judged, he said, accountability will lead to a greater sense of student trust in the EC.

Cook’s proposed change will not require adding an amendment to the White Book. He said this will help prevent forcing current students’ definitions onto the next student body.

The recent tension between the undergraduate college and the law school is because students have separate definitions of what an Honor Violation is, Cook said. The requirement in the White Book that an honor hearing jury be made up of ⅔ of students from the accused student’s school is already an “admission that we are two political communities,” he said.

Looking to the future, Cook said that pressure from the law students could lead to “getting rid of the single sanction.” He said the separation of the law school and the undergraduate college is a better solution, so each can preserve its own definition of justice.