TO THE EDITOR:
Regarding Professor Smith’s column on Monday (“Honor is shameful”), I respectfully believe his viewpoint is extremely narrow on the subject of honor. Honor does include the qualities of honesty and integrity, but it also includes qualities like trust, commitment and loyalty. I do not disagree that our Honor Court may have problems, or that actions historically and presently committed by people in the name of honor are not always right. But I do think that to focus on these issues severely limits what the definition of honor encompasses.
For example, the Core Values of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Army all include honor. To summarize, their definitions of “honor” mean to conduct oneself in the highest ethical manner possible and be responsible and accountable for public and personal behavior throughout our daily lives. To say that “this 19th-century relic should be placed in the institutional attic … along with William Saunders’ notorious white hood” appalls me. I think anyone in the military would also agree.
This is the same type of honor we strive for on campus. The Honor Code is meant to remind us that our discipline and behaviors are rights and responsibilities held by the students, faculty and administration. I think most of us take pride in the fact that we are Tar Heels, and that pride translates into actions as we conduct ourselves in our everyday lives. Therefore, to dismiss the idea of honor would greatly undermine the exceptional and potential actions that can and have come from it.
Ashley Cox
Sophomore
Communications
