The USMA Honor System-A Due Process Hybrid

• Author: by Major John H. Beasley
• Pages: 05

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." This IS the Cadet Honor Code at the United States Military Academy. Upon this Honor Code rests the ethical standards ofthe United States Corps of Cadets. The Honor Code iB also an institutional goal, en.swing that graduates of West Point have strong character, unm. peachable integrity, and moral standards of the highest order. The Cadet Honor Cde and System is recognized by the Academy and the Department of the Army as a primary means of achieving this character development.'

The Cadet Honor System is the vehicle by which the Carps ofcadets imparts the Honor Code to its members The Honor System establishes educational programs that support the basic concepts of the Honor Code, as well as the due process procedures to follow when a suspected honor violation 1s reported. While the fundamental statement ofthe Honor Code has changed very little since the early 19OO's, the Honor System LS an ever.evalving process that has undergone some rather drastic changes in the last ten years. Tracing these procedural and due process developments within the Cadet Honor System is a fasematmg exercise From an institutional point of view, it is interesting to see the growth of the Honor System from the early ad hoc cadet procedures, intentionally ignored by Academy officials, to the very structured and open system in existence today. From a legal perspective, the changes in the Honor System reflect significant court decisions on administrative due process, an area largely ignored until the 1970's. This article traces the due process aspects of the Cadet Honor System from both institutional and legal perspectives.

During the course of this analysis, It is important to keep in mind that the United States Military Academy (USMA) is indeed part of the United States Army Although this Seema a rather obvious point. It 1s all too easy to get the impression that the Military Academy LSsomehow exempt from Army regulations and policies. Cadets at the Academy are, in fact, members of the Regular Army They are as. signed to a unit designated a8 the Corps of Cadets3 which 18 organized into companies commanded by commissioned officers of the Army Upon entering the Academy, cadets sign an agreement to complete the four-year course of instruction, to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer of the Regular Army, and to serve in such ca. paeity for at least five years immediately following such appoint. ment.j Cadets failing to fulfill this agreement may be transferred by the Secretary of the Army to the Army Reserve, in an appropriate enlisted grade, and ordered to active duty in that grade for a maxi. mum of four years

Control of the Academy falls under the Department of the Army. with immediate governance being with the Superintendent. who IS

the commanding officer of both the Academy and the military post at West Point.' The immediate commander of the Corps of Cadets 1sthe Commandant, who is also responsible for the Instruction of the

Just as it may be hard at times to view West Paint within the Army system, placing the Cadet Honor Code and Honor System within the framework of Army administrative law can also appear to be some-what cumbersome The Honor Code 1s currently described by the Academy as "the minimum standard of [ethicall behavior required by cadets,"e and also a8 "the foundation of the standards and values of the Corps of Cadets."1o The Honor Code LS really many things--a rule of acceptable conduct, a moral and ethical creed, a revered custom of the ~eivice,and an important element of the Academy'e mission-to name but a few. But from the legal standpoint. the description of the Honor Code as that minimum standard of cadet ethical behavior 1s most reievant. The Honor Code, thus defined, iB not unlike a reg.

corps In tSCtlCS a

'lOUSC43075119828'10CSC$4349119821'IdBid'IdlUnited States Corps af Cadeta Pamphlet No 632-1, The Honor Code and Honor 1"M

'10 us c 5 1348 lsupp 111 1985,

14 US C S 4334 119821

Syrrem para 2, at 2 lJvne 19878

19871 USMA HONOR SYSTEM

dation or directive issued by a oven command, in this case, the United States Military Academy.

As stated earlier, the Honor System is the educational and procedural framework supporting the Honor Code If an honor violation is reported, these procedures involve various preliminary levels of informal investigations and, if required, a formal hearing by a cadet panel These procedures have been approved by the Academy Superintendent," under his inherent authority as B commander inquiring into the activities of his command."

With this general picture of how West Paint fit8 within the averall Army framework, the Honor Code and System can now be traced. The first segment in the history of the Honor Code and System begins with the founding of the Military Academy in 1802 and ends In ap-proximately 1925, when both the Code and System were first formalized. The original Honor Code was actually an extension of the "Code of Honor" then prevalent in the officer corps of the U.S. Army. This was a very broad code but, at least in the Academy's application, it meant that a cadet was to be fundamentally honest and accepted at his word. There was little agreement a8 to what constituted a violation of the early code and, until the mid-I920's, there were noattempts made to place the code into written

The first attempt to expand the early code beyond lying came when Colonel Sylvanus Thayer was Superintendent of the Academy from 1811-1833. Colonel Thayer, honored as the "Father of the Military Academy" primarily for his development of the West Point educational system and cadet training programs, considered cheating to be

B violation of the Honor Code and announced that violators would be expelled. The prohibitions on cheating did not apparently take hold, a8 indicated by a quote from the Academy adjutant in a May 9,1905, letter written in response to a questionnaire from the University of Chicago on the West Point Honor System. "It is not a point of honor with cadets not to obtain information unauthorizedly. By this I mean that if a cadet is ever caught cheating, his punishment, while very severe, does not include necessarily dismissal from the Military Aeademy."" In this 8ame letter the adjutant went on to explain that "The

"United Sfstec Carps ai Cadets Pamphlet No 15-1. Hanoi Commmee Procedures. "Dep't ofAmy. Pamphlet So 27-21,.MihfaryAdmm~~tratlueLaw.para

1-7 (1 Oct.

LWmted States Military Academy. Supenntendent'a Specla1 Study Group on Honor l'ld at A.22

m I (June 1984119851at West Poinr. May 1975, at A.2. 4 [hereinsfier Study Group1

honor System which we have involves this and only this. that the uord of a cadet is never questioned "'J

Just two year8 later, however, the superintendent issued a written directive that cheating would in fact falllinder the Honor Code. The u ~ e of this directive 18 interesting not only from the standpoint of expanding the Honor Code, but it also provides insight into the developing "official" nature of the Honor Code as part ofAcademy policy.

Stealing, the third tenet of the present Honor Code, was not included in the early code but was rather a matter of regulations. Of. fenders were court-martialed; if found guilty they were separated from the Academy as a minimum.1i At some point in the mid-1920's stealing did become part ofthe Honor Code, but it appears that senous violators were still referred to courts-martial

With the addition of stealing as an honor violation, the Honor Code became. "A cadet does not lie. cheat. OT steal I' From the mid-1920's to 1970, when the nontoleration clause was added, this remained the Cadet Honor Code.

TheearlvHonorSvstemwasinrealitvno"svstem"atal1. but rather

-'Id

"Id at A-4

19871 USMA HONOR SYSTEM

ognhon by the Academy, its existence was tolerated and its decisions unofficially sanctioned.

It is unfortunate that so little is known of this formative stage of the Honor System The Vigilance Committee was obviously a powerful force in honor matters, but its procedures may always remain a mystery. The beat clue available is that the formation of the Honor CornmitteeFlonar System (1920) used the Vigilance Committee and its procedures as a model. The early Honor System involved an investigation but, as described later in some detail, due process was sorely lacking. This WBB in all likelihood the method ofthe Viglanee Committee--an informal investigation with very few rights being afforded the accused cadet. The big difference was that the Honor Committee's investigation was only the first step in a two.step system, the second being the right of the accused cadet to a very formal hearing by a board of officers. The Vigilance Committee's decision was usually the final decision on the maue of guilt or innocence unless the Academy al~abecame aware of the incident and conducted Its own investigation.

In conclusion, the early Honor Code was generally concerned with lying and the early Honor System was a very informal enforcement mechaniam conducted first on a cadet-to-cadet basis and later through the Vigilance Committee. The Academy became involved only in se-rious cases that had some official interest or impact. Otherwise it appears that a "guilty" cadet was usually confronted by the cadet chain of command and asked to leave the Academy. A cadet not electing to leave could be ''shmd' (discussed later) or reported to the Academy for official action, often including court-martial.

Following the formative period (1802-1925) ofthe Honor Code and Honor System, the next logical break 1s from 1926-1916. This fifty-year period saw some gradual evolution in the Honor Code, the Honor System, institutional concepts, and legal concepts, which set the stage for the rather abrupt changes occurring in 1976.

As concerns the Honor Code, it remained unchanged until the addition of the nontoleration clause in 1970. With this addition, the Honor Code emerged in its present...