The non-toleration requirement of military school honor codes requiring cadets to report their peers for honor violations is developmentally inappropriate for adolescents in terms of the state of their brain development and emotional maturity because it makes neurological and psychological demands on teens attending military prep schools—many not of their own choosing—that are beyond their developmental and emotional capabilities in several areas. This requirement extends beyond the ken of either the scope of the mission of military prep schools or the neurological and psychological developmental abilities of the adolescent students attending them. Research also shows that it is largely ineffective in reducing honor offenses. To enhance the effectiveness, schools can modify the self-policing aspect by replacing the non-toleration requirement with something more developmentally appropriate while still meaningful, adopt an honor continuum that allows for growth, and implement an honor development approach that contains positive reinforcement and encourages continuous development.
TopIntroduction
“I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Traditional Military School Honor Code
Writing in an ethical treatise for his son in Greece thousands of years ago, Aristotle advised him that a good character is developed beginning one’s early youth by the repetition of many small acts that form habits. Expanding on the notion that one becomes virtuous by the practice of virtue, Aristotle argues that a good character is the foundation of honor in both senses of the word – a good reputation and a proclivity for taking the right actions for the right reasons – which feed off one another. (Aristotle, 1103a24 -1103b21) While decidedly out of fashion in today’s parlance and pedagogy, Aristotle’s notion regarding honor is alive and well in some parts of present-day American education, as both the term and notion of honor are still widely apparent in honor codes and honor systems used in portions of the country’s educational system.
Standing in stark contrast to the contemporary and more relativistic manner of intentional character development, honor systems use a didactic structure of moral absolutes to focus on emphasizing and inculcating an overall sense of honor – comprised of the attributes of truthfulness, honesty, and trustworthiness – into students. The heart of honor systems are honor codes, which are explicit statements of specific behaviors prohibited within an honor system. Prohibitions against lying, cheating, and stealing are almost universally included, intending to motivate students to avoid engaging in such action so that by repetition, they will manifest habitual behaviors of taking the right actions for the (morally) right reasons. Students are also elected to sit in judgment of their peers accused of violating an institution’s honor code as a way of demonstrating ownership of it. Aristotle would not only recognize but also heartily approve of such an approach.
Honor codes and honor systems are used widely in American military schools. Since they are effective ways of appealing to the better nature of students as a foundation of discipline and as a gateway into a community of trust on campus, honor codes are institutionally fitting for schools using a military model of education. The effectiveness of some aspect of these systems in this regard indicate that they have much intrinsic value for the institutions within which they operate because the more mature students are equipped, developmentally and emotionally, to benefit from their demands.
The existing honor systems in American military prep schools arose in the second and third decades of the 20th century and are based largely on the models adopted by military colleges around the same time. Comprised of honor codes, behavioral requirements, and accountability measures, the noble intent for these honor systems is to serve as frameworks for developing character and instilling institutional values in students. Adolescents can understand and adhere to the strictures against lying, cheating, and stealing, and they can also learn to sit in judgment of their peers as elected honor representatives.
For the previous 50 years, however, many/most military school honor codes have adopted a so-called “non-toleration requirement” that forbids cadets from tolerating others who violate such strictures. The formal incorporation of the non-toleration requirement was quite significant in that it made a failure to report an honor violation committed by another/others an honor violation in its own right, transforming what had been an informally accepted practice into a prescribed requirement punishable by dismissal (in some cases).
The non-toleration requirement creates a challenging Manichean dynamic between supporting the ideals of an institution and also demonstrating loyalty to one’s peers. Students who are more mature and voluntarily attending military colleges struggle with the demands of this requirement, particularly in practice, and the effectiveness of it illustrates the challenges the experience with it. Without conducting a proper assessment of its developmental appropriateness for adolescents, many military prep schools adopted the non-toleration requirement somewhat reflexively in an attempt to remain congruent with West Point in this important area.