Engineering Honor Code Admirable

by Doug Hillhouse

Few will disagree that honor is an admirable and essential virtue. We have great respect for truthful people, though all the while we expect truth from them. We try to instill honor in our workplaces, our homes, and in general, our lives. Accordingly, as the principal source of early guidance in our lives, schools have stepped up and assumed this responsibility. Their efforts are embodied in honor codes, which address this need for fulfillment and community trust.

Within schools, in fact, there exist department­specific honor codes. These codes incorporate a unique tradition and profession into an otherwise general ethical statement. The U­M Engineering Honor Code is a prime example; engineers have a history and responsibilities all their own. Since they exist as a separate community in a sense, is there any doubt as to the need for a separate, more applicable honor code?

By standing alone, the Honor Code for engineers makes a more profound statement than some general plea for honor. From the outset of the code, the engineering legacy is laid on the table. The engineering profession has a long­standing record of fostering high standards of integrity in the performance of professional services. From the looks of this, I would have a little anxiety about filling some big shoes. Frank Tetel, an Engineering freshman, disagrees:

"I dont see it as a pressure to conform; I see it as a foundation on which to grow. If there's a lot of pride in the profession's history, this is something I want to be a part of."

Indeed, it seems that tradition has a powerful influence on the Honor Code. There are two ways to approach strong tradition: fear and maintain it, or marvel and maintain it. The Honor Code seems to impressively elicit the latter.

The Code conveys a different sentiment than many other honor codes. Some tend to be more threatening and legalistic, to put it bluntly. Whereas the engineering Code seems to ask for cooperation and explains what is at stake for the community, these codes feel the need to resort to scare­tactics. Although such tactics seem antithetical to the nature of honor codes by creating a sense of legal consequences, this may be the only way certain students can be reached. Perhaps these students are not mature enough to value the true objectives and inherent beauty of honor codes. In this unfortunate situation, the code must rely on a deterrent rather than an attraction to be effective.

The converse to this is an entrusting Code. With words like "record" or phrases like "longstanding," engineers can associate with an important history all their own. By mentioning the Canon of Ethics for Engineers, the original engineering honor code, the Code implies that more than just history is out there it says there is a tradition that somebody cared about continuing. Through a special bond, that somebody is depending on each fellow engineer to acknowledge the tradition, understand the tradition, and live the tradition.

What is this special bond? By having their own traditions, engineers bond with those current and past. While these bonds cannot be created by a general statement from the school, an honor code that speaks to engineering concerns and roles certainly has the capacity to do so. Two lines of the Honor Code clearly exhibit this bond, and the responsibilities and expectations that accompany it: "to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the Engineering Profession...to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession."

Tradition is priceless. However, the active role of today's engineer is just as important. Impressively, the Honor Code doesn't fail us here either. After a statement that could be interpreted universally throughout the school community students are placed on their honor during all examinations and written quizzes the Code continues with specifics for engineers: "and... for computer questions... and laboratory reports." This clarifies the "do's" and "dont's" for engineers, and reminds them that these smaller items are just as important. Matt Kendelski, also an Engineering freshman, appreciates this special attention:

"An engineering student often has more exposure to computers, labs, and research materials than normal textbooks and exams. I guess it's good the Code recognizes our uniqueness."

Identity is important, and engineering students, like anyone, value this. They have different equipment and learning environments in their education; it is essential that their community notes these differences and stresses their responsibility just the same. After all, people can abuse honor in many ways, even those that may seem unconventional. This is not, of course, to imply that engineers do abuse honor, but to recognize the fact that honor violations are not limited to hiding test answers below the brim of a hat.

Whether the Code provides engineers with tradition and bonds, or guidance for their specific professional duties, it most certainly has merit to the Engineering community. Honor cannot be an isolated concept to which students struggle to relate it must address the here and the now, and alao address the past at the same time. There are certain expectations of today's engineer, and they are no better articulated or felt than in the Code. MR

This article was published in the 11 February 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 7).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.