From time to time we have discussed the Honor System, pointing out what we considered some of the flaws in the way in which it was working out in actual practice, raising for general discussion the question of whether it was worth retaining or whether it might better be discarded. In the main, the many abuses or misconstructions of the Honor System have prejudiced us against it, but we remain perfectly open minded on the matter, believing that thorough discussion of the problem is one of the best means for reaching a healthy solution. Several times, also, we have taken occasion to point out institutions where a proposed Honor System has been rejected by students, as at Harvard; where it has met severe enough criticism to gain official attention by University authorities but after discussion has been retained, as at Union College; and where it has been abolished because it has been considered a failure, as in the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

But a divergent sentiment seems to ripple the surface of undergraduate opinion. The Lehigh Brown and White of last Friday carried an editorial entitled, "Could the Honor System Be Renewed?" This briefly recounts the history of the Honor System at Lehigh which was abolished two years ago by a majority vote of students after it had been in vogue for some 20 years. Following a discussion of the advantages of the Honor System, it concludes with the statement that "we sincerely believe that the renewal of such a system would be a long stride toward a greater Lehigh." It is gratifying to hear such an opinion, particularly if it echoes the sentiment of a majority at Lehigh, for it indicates that there is some feeling strongly enough in favor of an Honor System to want public expression. The only adverse thought which might arise in one's mind is why did a majority of students at Lehigh vote to abolish the system two years ago.

Our quarrel with the Honor System is not to be taken as an impugnment of the moral fibre of students but rather as a disapproval of the mechanics of such a means of control. Most students take examinations, write reports, and so forth, without caring whether they are working under the surveillance of a proctor or of their own consciences. For them it makes no difference whether or not they have an Honor System. As for the student who says that it makes him nervous to have a proctor in the room, that he constantly feels uneasy, we have little sympathy. He will have to get used sometime to working under the eye of an employer. The purpose of an Honor System should not be to nurse along incompetents or to make it pleasant and attractive for writing, but it is a gentleman's agreement which lifts a distasteful and annoying burden from the shoulders of members of the faculty and which treats students like gentlemen.

But in practice it does not seem to have worked well at Cornell. Violations certainly do not seem to have diminished although there are no means for determining what the proportions are today compared with those of five years ago. What the Honor System means is that the routine and time-exhausting task of disposing of violations is taken from the faculty and handed to the students. More than 90 per cent of honor violations are reported by members of the faculty. If students do not report violations and only faculty members do, then why should not faculty members do, then why should not faculty members decide the punishment of offenders? Why should the older men detect the infractions and then hand culprits over to students to mete out the penalty? A very considerable amount of time is required of undergraduates to dispose of persons who are detected by members of the faculty. If there is to be an Honor System it should be carried on wholly by students. If this is not done then faculty members might better dispose of the cases which they themselves discover. --Cornell Sun.