Hubbry Logo
Cadet Honor CodeCadet Honor CodeMain
Open search
Cadet Honor Code
Community hub
Cadet Honor Code
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cadet Honor Code
Cadet Honor Code
Cadet Honor Code
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Honor Code Monument at West Point Military Academy

In the United States, a Cadet Honor Code is a system of ethics or code of conduct applying to cadets studying at military academies. These codes exist at the federal service academies, such as the United States Military Academy and the United States Air Force Academy and at the senior military colleges, as well as other military schools and colleges. The United States Naval Academy and United States Coast Guard Academy have a related standard, known as the Honor Concept.

Since it applies to all facets of a cadet's life, a cadet honor code is distinct from an academic honor code, which is used at many universities and colleges around the world but applies to academic conduct only. The codes apply to all cadets enrolled in the military programs at the institutions which use them.

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point

[edit]

West Point's Cadet Honor Code reads simply that

A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.

Cadets accused of violating the Honor Code face a standardized investigative and hearing process. First they are tried by a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty, the case will go up to the commandant of the academy who will give his recommendation, then to the superintendent of the academy, who has the discretion to either impose sanctions or recommend that the Secretary of the Army expel the cadet from the academy.

Three rules of thumb

[edit]
  1. Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived?
  2. Does this action gain or allow the gain of privilege or advantage to which I or someone else would not otherwise be entitled?
  3. Would I be satisfied by the outcome if I were on the receiving end of this action?

History and relevance

[edit]

The premise behind the Honor Code is as old as the academy itself. When the academy was founded in 1802, the officer corps operated on a simple code of honor—an officer's word was his bond. Sylvanus Thayer, superintendent of the academy from 1817 to 1833, explicitly banned cheating as part of his efforts to increase the academy's scholarship standards. Allegations of theft were dealt with under normal Army regulations until the 1920s. The first major step toward formalizing the unwritten Honor Code came in 1922 when Superintendent Douglas MacArthur formed the first Cadet Honor Committee, which reviewed all allegations of honor infractions. In 1947, Superintendent Maxwell Taylor drafted the first official Honor Code publication, which is considered the first codification of the Cadet Honor Code. Although failure to report violations had long been reckoned as grounds for expulsion, the code wasn't formally amended to expressly forbid "toleration" until 1970.[1]

In August 1951, Time reported that 90 of the academy's 2,500 cadets were facing dismissal for mass violations of the honor code related to "cribbing", receiving the answers to exams ahead of time, allegedly through upperclass tutors who were assisting other cadets, mostly dedicated football players, to study for those exams.[2]

The Army arranged for an investigation by a panel which included famed jurist Learned Hand and retired generals Troy H. Middleton, then president of Louisiana State University, and Robert M. Danford, a former commandant of cadets at West Point.[3] The board recommended dismissal of all 90 suspected violators of the Honor Code, and while the Army and Congress debated the issue and its causes, the cadets were left with a cloud hanging over their heads and their futures.

There have been other instances of mass cheating scandals at the academy, including two very famous ones. In August 1976, where it was found that possibly over half of the junior class at the academy had violated the honor code by cheating on a case assignment.[4] In 1951, 37 members of the football team were dismissed after they were found to have cheated. The team was so decimated that it fell to 2–7, the only losing record suffered by legendary coach Red Blaik.

In 2015, West Point adopted the Willful Admission Program, which offered leniency to cadets for first-time violations of the Honor Code.[5] In December 2020, 73 cadets were accused of cheating on a calculus exam in May 2020, when West Point had shifted to virtual classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 59 cadets admitted to cheating on the exam.[6] Of the 73 accused cadets, six resigned while being investigated; four cadets were acquitted, and cases were dropped against two.[7] Among the 61 cadets found guilty of cheating, eight were expelled,[7] including several who were eligible to apply for readmission to West Point after serving for eight months to a year as enlisted soldiers.[5] Fifty-one cadets admitted responsibility and entered the Willful Admission Process,[7] under which they were placed on probation and required to complete after-hours classes and discussions on ethics.[6] As part of the program, 51 cadets were turned back a year and two were turned back six months.[7] In 2021, the academy ended the Willful Admission Process after concluding that it was ineffective at encouraging compliance with the Honor Code.[5][8]

U.S. Air Force Academy

[edit]

The Cadet Honor Code at the Air Force Academy, like that at West Point, is the cornerstone of a cadet's professional training and development – the minimum standard of ethical conduct that cadets expect of themselves and their fellow cadets. Air Force's honor code was developed and adopted by the Class of 1959, the first class to graduate from the academy, and has been handed down to every subsequent class.[9][10] The code adopted was based largely on West Point's Honor Code, but was modified slightly to its current wording:[11]

We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.

In 1984, the Cadet Wing voted to add an "Honor Oath", which was to be taken by all cadets. The oath is administered to fourth class cadets (freshmen) when they are formally accepted into the wing at the conclusion of Basic Cadet Training.[10] The oath consists of a statement of the code, followed by a resolution to live honorably:

We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.
Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably (so help me God).[12]

Cadets are considered the "guardians and stewards" of the code. Cadet honor representatives throughout the wing oversee the honor system by conducting education classes and investigating possible honor incidents. Cadets throughout the wing are expected to sit on honor boards as juries that determine whether their fellow cadets violated the code. Cadets also recommend sanctions for violations. Although the presumed sanction for a violation is disenrollment, mitigating factors may result in the violator being placed in a probationary status for some period of time.

Senior military colleges

[edit]

The Cadet Honor Codes, described within the Cadet Honor Manuals, belong to the Corps of Cadets at these institutions and is administered by cadets. It is each cadet's duty upon enrollment to be familiar with the honor system as set forth in the Honor Manual and to abide by the Honor Code. Simply stated, the code demands that a cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do. These codes apply to all cadets at the Citadel, North Georgia, Norwich, Mass Maritime, Texas A&M, Virginia Military Institute, and Virginia Tech, although the systems of administration, enforcement, and sanctions vary between institutions.[13][14][15]

[edit]

The 2005 ESPN made-for-TV movie Code Breakers was about the 1951 scandal in which 83 West Point cadets were implicated in violations of the Cadet Honor Code in order to help the West Point football team.

The 1975 TV movie The Silence is a recounting of the case of Cadet James Pelosi, who though accused of an honor code violation maintained his innocence and refused to resign from the Military Academy; and as a result was "silenced" by his fellow cadets as permitted under such circumstances by the Honor Code at that time. He was isolated from the other cadets, was not permitted to have roommates, and had to eat all his meals at a separate table. He was not spoken to by other cadets or officers except on duty, and then only on matters of duty; and when addressed was addressed as "Mister", not by name. Pelosi endured 19 months of this treatment, but went on to graduate with his class in 1973.

The Long Gray Line, a 1955 biopic of Master Sergeant Martin Maher, who served in the West Point Athletic Department as both an Army enlisted man and a civilian employee, featured a sequence concerning a cadet who married a girl on impulse while on leave. Even though the marriage was immediately annulled, Sergeant Maher pointed out to the cadet that there was the Honor Code to consider. (Cadets at West Point cannot be married, an inflexible rule even today.) The cadet in question submitted his resignation rather than face the Honor Committee.

Jimmy Cagney starred in the 1950 movie The West Point Story. Part of the plot involved his character, Elwin "Bix" Bixby, a World War II combat veteran and Broadway director, living at West Point as a plebe cadet and occasionally running afoul of the Honor Code.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cadet Honor Code

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Cadet Honor Code is a rigorous ethical framework central to the United States Military Academy at West Point, encapsulated in the pledge: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." This code demands absolute integrity in conduct, speech, and judgment, serving as the bedrock for developing military leaders who prioritize duty and honor above personal gain. Emerging from grassroots cadet initiatives in the early 19th century to combat dishonesty within the corps, the code was formalized in the 1920s amid efforts to instill professional ethics. Its enforcement relies heavily on peer oversight through cadet-led honor committees, with the non-toleration clause obligating individuals to report violations observed in others, thereby cultivating collective responsibility over selective loyalty. Comparable systems operate at other institutions, including the U.S. Air Force Academy's adoption of a near-identical code by its inaugural class in 1959 and the U.S. Naval Academy's Honor Concept, which similarly prohibits lying, cheating, or stealing while emphasizing truthfulness and fairness. The code's defining characteristic lies in its uncompromising application, where breaches often result in expulsion to preserve institutional trust, though rehabilitative processes have occasionally been debated and adjusted, as seen in West Point's 2021 policy shift toward stricter standards. High-profile violations, such as the 2025 investigation into nearly 100 Air Force Academy cadets for test cheating, underscore ongoing challenges in upholding the system amid modern pressures, yet affirm its role in forging resilient character.

Core Principles and Formulation

Standard Text and Variations

The Cadet Honor Code at the (USMA) at West Point is articulated as: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." This formulation, which emphasizes personal prohibitions against dishonesty, theft, and passive acceptance of violations by peers, serves as the archetypal standard for honor systems. Cadets affirm this code through oaths and daily recitation, with the non-toleration clause reinforcing collective accountability. Variations appear in wording and structure across other U.S. service academies and senior military colleges, though most retain the core elements of proscribing lying, cheating, and stealing while addressing peer enforcement. The (USAFA) employs a collective phrasing: "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." This version, adopted in 1956, shifts to first-person plural and alters the sequence of offenses but preserves the non-toleration mandate, which was made optional in recitations starting October 29, 2013, to encourage internal reflection over mandatory reporting. In contrast, the (USNA) eschews a succinct code in favor of the Honor Concept of the Brigade of Midshipmen, which states that midshipmen are "persons of " obligated to "act with in all situations, to , to obey the law, and to exemplify the highest standards of honor." This broader ethical framework, formalized in the mid-20th century without a rigid pledge against specific acts like lying or , prioritizes and over punitive enforcement. Senior military colleges, such as the , often adopt near-identical versions to the USMA standard: "A will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do." Similar adaptations prevail at institutions like and , where codes mirror West Point's phrasing to instill uniform military values, though some permit minor modifications for institutional context without diluting the non-toleration principle. These variations reflect adaptations to academy-specific cultures while upholding empirical links to reduced misconduct through self-governed integrity.

Ethical Foundations and Rationale

The Cadet Honor Code is grounded in the ethical imperative of absolute integrity, positing that truthfulness, non-deception, and accountability form the indispensable foundation for military leadership and operational efficacy. At institutions like the United States Military Academy, the code's core tenet—"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do"—serves to cultivate a self-regulating moral framework where personal honor aligns with collective trust, essential in environments where commanders must rely on subordinates' unvarnished reports and obedience without verification. This rationale derives from the causal reality that dishonesty erodes unit cohesion and mission success; for instance, falsified intelligence or shirked duties can precipitate catastrophic failures in combat, where empirical evidence from military history underscores trust as a determinant of victory. The non-toleration clause reinforces this by mandating peer enforcement, transforming passive adherence into active guardianship of standards, thereby deterring ethical decay through social accountability rather than mere individual restraint. This mechanism addresses the principal-agent problem inherent in hierarchical structures: officers delegate assuming , and tolerating violations normalizes , undermining the required for high-stakes command. Proponents argue it fosters intrinsic for honorable conduct, aligning with service core values like "integrity first," which prioritize uncompromised decision-making over expediency. Empirical outcomes include graduates who internalize trust as a hallmark, enabling seamless integration into forces where lapses could forfeit lives or strategic objectives. Philosophically, the code draws from traditions emphasizing , where character precedes rules, promoting an environment of mutual respect that counters the temptations of anonymity or pressure in formative . Unlike permissive systems reliant on external , it empowers cadets to self-police, reasoning that true demands voluntary uprightness amid adversity, as enforced inconsistencies breed and weaken resolve. This approach, while demanding for infractions to maintain credibility, yields a cadre of officers whose reliability is presumed, facilitating efficient warfare devoid of pervasive suspicion.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Early Roots in Military Tradition

The tradition of honor in contexts predates modern academies, emerging from ancient warrior societies where personal integrity, courage, and trustworthiness were essential for leadership and unit cohesion. In , Homeric epics portrayed heroes bound by timē (honor), emphasizing truthfulness in s and prowess without deceit, as seen in the Iliad's depiction of warriors upholding pledges amid warfare. This ethos influenced philosophical conceptions, with in the (circa 350 BCE) linking honor to virtuous conduct, including justice and magnanimity, ideals that resonated in military training. Roman legions extended similar principles through the sacramentum, a sworn to the demanding and , reinforced by severe penalties for or , as documented in Polybius's Histories (2nd century BCE). Medieval European formalized these roots into a structured code for the knightly class, blending with martial duties between the 12th and 14th centuries. Knights were expected to uphold truth, avoid treachery, and protect the defenseless, as outlined in Geoffrey de Charny's Book of Chivalry (1350), which stressed honesty in combat and personal dealings to preserve noble status. Chivalric orders, such as the Knights Templar founded in 1119, enforced internal oaths prohibiting lying, theft, or toleration of such acts among members, fostering a peer-enforced system of accountability. These practices ensured command reliability in feudal levies, where officers' credibility directly impacted troop morale and allegiance. By the early modern period (1500–1789), honor evolved into a professional ethic for standing armies' officer corps, distinguishing them from enlisted ranks and emphasizing unyielding integrity to sustain hierarchical trust. In European militaries, such as the French and Prussian, officers adhered to unwritten codes viewing deceit as incompatible with command authority; Frederick the Great's Instructions for His Generals (1747) implicitly required truthful reporting and loyalty, with dishonor leading to social ostracism or duels. Duelling codes, like those in 17th-century Italy and France, codified responses to insults against honor, reinforcing norms against falsehoods among elites. This aristocratic framework, prioritizing a gentleman's word over written contracts, laid the groundwork for later institutional codes by embedding intolerance for ethical lapses as a hallmark of military professionalism.

Formal Adoption and Expansion to Other Institutions

The honor system at the (USMA) at West Point, though informally practiced since the academy's establishment in 1802, received its formal structure in 1922 under Superintendent , who created the Cadet Honor Committee to oversee ethical enforcement and . This institutionalization transformed longstanding cadet traditions into a codified framework, emphasizing self-regulation and peer accountability to prevent violations such as lying, , or stealing. By the late 1940s, the system evolved further with the adoption of an explicit written code in 1947—"A cadet will not lie, cheat, nor steal"—which cadets implicitly understood to include intolerance of such acts by peers, though the non-toleration clause was not officially appended until 1970. This formalized West Point model influenced other U.S. service academies as they developed parallel systems post-World War II. The United States Naval Academy (USNA), founded in 1845 with early precedents like cadet "honor fights" to resolve disputes, shifted from regulatory conduct rules to a distinct Honor Concept by 1952, prioritizing personal integrity ("Midshipmen are persons of integrity") over mandatory peer reporting, distinguishing it from West Point's stricter toleration expectations. Similarly, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), established by congressional act in 1954, integrated an honor code from its inception; the entering Class of 1955 drafted initial language, with cadets formalizing "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does" by 1956, explicitly modeled on the Naval Academy's version and, indirectly, West Point's traditions. The USAFA's Class of 1959, the first to graduate, ratified this code to embed it in the institution's culture. Beyond federal service academies, the West Point-inspired framework expanded to non-federal senior military colleges during the (1918–1939), as these institutions sought to align with military ethical standards amid growing emphasis on character development for officer commissioning. Schools such as (VMI), founded in 1839, and , established in 1842, adopted formalized honor codes in the 1920s and 1930s, featuring similar prohibitions against dishonesty and peer enforcement mechanisms tailored to their state-supported, corps-of-cadets structures. This proliferation reflected a broader trend in American military education, where honor codes served as tools for instilling discipline and trust essential for leadership, though variations emerged to accommodate institutional differences like voluntary versus mandatory reporting.

Implementation in U.S. Service Academies

United States Military Academy at West Point

The Honor Code at the (USMA) at West Point is articulated as: "A will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." This formulation serves as the foundational ethical standard for cadets, emphasizing personal integrity and collective accountability within the Academy's character development framework. Rooted in military traditions dating to the Academy's founding in 1802, the unwritten code evolved from informal cadet vigilance committees enforcing gentlemanly conduct in the early . Formalization occurred incrementally: the Cadet Honor Committee was established in 1922 under Superintendent to systematize investigations, followed by the codified statement in 1947 omitting the toleration clause, which was added in 1970 to mandate reporting of observed violations within a reasonable timeframe. The non-toleration provision underscores the system's peer-enforcement mechanism, defining failure to report as a violation itself, thereby cultivating a culture of mutual oversight essential for developing officers capable of upholding professional military . Cadets apply a "Three Rules to Live By" test—would I be truthful, fair, and respectful in this action?—to guide daily decisions, aligning with the Honor Code's spirit of truthfulness, fairness, respect for others and property, and adherence to ethical standards. Enforcement is primarily cadet-led through an annually elected Honor Committee of approximately 80 members, who conduct investigations, hearings, and recommendations to the Superintendent for adjudication. The process begins with reporting suspicions, followed by fact-finding inquiries; findings of violation can result in separation from the , delayed graduation up to one year, or retention via remedial programs like the Special Leader Development Program (SLDP-H), which includes structured ethical training. In response to a 2020 exam involving 73 accused cadets—primarily athletes collaborating online—the discontinued its willful admission rehabilitation pathway in April 2021, opting for stricter measures: 51 cadets repeated a year, eight were separated, and others faced mentorship with potential readmission barred. This incident highlighted ongoing challenges in maintaining code adherence amid remote learning pressures, echoing prior breaches like the 1976 engineering exam implicating over 100 cadets. Despite these lapses, the system prioritizes prevention through integrated instruction from plebe year onward, reinforcing that honor violations undermine trust critical to military leadership. Empirical outcomes, such as low routine violation rates outside major incidents, suggest the code's efficacy in fostering self-regulation, though critics argue mass events indicate cultural or institutional tolerance gaps requiring continual vigilance.

United States Air Force Academy

The Cadet Honor Code at the states: "We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does." This code, adopted in 1955 by the Class of 1959, forms the foundation of the academy's character development program, emphasizing as essential for future officers. Inspired by the United States Military Academy's system, it was formally accepted by the Cadet Wing in September 1956 to instill moral habits through self-policing and nontoleration. Cadets affirm the Honor Oath during the Acceptance Day Parade following Basic Cadet Training, pledging: "We will not , steal, or , nor tolerate among us anyone who does. Furthermore, I resolve to do my and to live honorably, ()." The oath, added in 1984, extends the code to a broader commitment to duty and honorable living. on the code begins in basic training and continues throughout the four-year program, integrating with the academy's core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do, formalized in the . The is cadet-owned and administered by the Cadet Honor Committee (CHC), comprising elected honor representatives and the Honor Executive Committee (EXCO), with oversight from the Honor Directorate and Commandant of Cadets. Violations are defined as lying through intentional deceit, stealing by depriving others of property or service without consent, cheating by seeking undeserved advantage, or tolerating by failing to confront and report unresolved incidents. Enforcement involves self-reporting or peer confrontation; unresolved cases proceed through clarification, investigation, and adjudication by panels such as the Cadet Squadron Review Panel (CSRP) or Wing Honor Board (), requiring proof of both act and intent by a two-thirds majority. Outcomes include remediation for minor cases or recommendations for sanctions like or disenrollment, reviewed by the and Superintendent. Historically, the system faced challenges, including a 1984 scandal involving widespread violations that led to temporary suspension, an amnesty program, and implementation of a revised system in January 1985 following surveys and the Honor Assessment review. From 1956 to 1987, over 1,300 s resigned or were disenrolled for violations, averaging about 1% annually. Periodic reviews, such as the 2021 directive by Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clark, ensure ongoing adaptation while maintaining -led principles.

United States Naval Academy

The Honor Concept of the Brigade of Midshipmen at the states: "Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the truth is known. They do not lie, cheat, or steal." This formulation establishes a baseline expectation against specific acts of while emphasizing broader ethical conduct, including fairness and for others' property. Unlike stricter honor codes at other service academies that mandate peer reporting of violations, the USNA's approach relies on voluntary adherence and , without classifying tolerance of wrongdoing as an independent offense. Midshipmen are introduced to the concept during induction, with ongoing reinforcement through academic instruction, leadership training, and peer discussions to foster intrinsic motivation rather than external compulsion. The Honor Concept was formalized in 1953 following efforts led by First Class H. , who chaired a to codify midshipman ideals amid concerns over inconsistent enforcement of informal honor norms dating back to the academy's founding in 1845. Early traditions included "honor fights," where midshipmen resolved disputes over through supervised combat until such practices were phased out in the mid-20th century. The 1953 adoption aimed to promote trust within the brigade and prepare future officers for command responsibilities, evolving from ad hoc responses to scandals into a structured ethical framework administered under the Brigade Honor Program. Enforcement involves a midshipman-led Honor Board, comprising elected representatives from each class, which investigates allegations through peer hearings and recommends actions to the of Midshipmen. Violations, such as academic or falsifying reports, can result in separation from the , though the system prioritizes remediation and character development for lesser infractions to align with naval principles that value redemption over punitive expulsion in all cases. The program's effectiveness is assessed through annual reviews and surveys, with data indicating high self-reported integrity levels among graduates, though critics note potential underreporting due to the absence of mandatory disclosure requirements.

Extension to Senior Military Colleges

Key Institutions and Shared Codes

Several senior military colleges (SMCs) in the United States maintain cadet honor codes modeled after those of the federal service academies, emphasizing prohibitions against lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerating such conduct. These institutions, designated by federal law under 10 U.S.C. § 2111a, include , (VMI), Corps of Cadets, and , among others. Their codes foster a culture of integrity within structured military environments that commission officers through ROTC programs. The Citadel's Honor Code explicitly states: "A does not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." Adopted as the foundational ethical standard, it governs all cadet conduct and is enforced through a cadet-led Honor Committee, with violations typically resulting in expulsion under a single-sanction system. This code, formalized in the institution's regulations, underscores personal accountability and collective vigilance. VMI employs an identical phrasing: "A will not , , steal, nor tolerate those who do," integrated into daily life since the institute's founding in 1839. The , administered by elected committees, permeates academics, inspections, and interpersonal relations, with the non-toleration clause obligating peers to report infractions. Historical records confirm its role in building character, upheld through rigorous enforcement without graduated penalties. Texas A&M University's of Cadets adheres to the Aggie Code of Honor: "An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do," extended specifically to cadets via "The Standard," which mandates honor as a core value. Established in the early and refined in documents like the Corps Operations Manual, it aligns with , promoting self-reporting and peer oversight within the voluntary structure. Norwich University, the oldest private military college and birthplace of the ROTC, upholds: "A student will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do," applying uniformly to its of Cadets. Documented in catalogs since at least the mid-20th century, the code supports a self-governing that emphasizes ethical decision-making in a regimented environment. These shared formulations reflect a deliberate emulation of service academy traditions, prioritizing absolute over , with empirical emphasis on deterrence through universal enforcement rather than rehabilitation. Variations exist in scope—some extend to all students—but the core proscriptive language remains consistent across institutions.

Adaptations for Non-Federal Contexts

Non-federal senior military colleges, such as The Citadel, Virginia Military Institute (VMI), and Texas A&M University's Corps of Cadets, have adopted honor codes modeled directly on the federal service academies' framework, emphasizing prohibitions against lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerating such acts. These institutions, designated by the U.S. Department of Defense as senior military colleges for their ROTC programs and military training, adapted the code to align with their state-supported or private governance structures, maintaining cadet-led enforcement while incorporating variations suited to mixed military-civilian environments. At , a state-supported college in , the honor code states: "A does not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do," mirroring the federal phrasing verbatim and enforced through a honor committee and court system that upholds single-sanction expulsion for violations. This adaptation preserves the non-toleration clause central to federal codes but applies it within a private-like institutional , free from direct federal oversight, allowing for localized procedures detailed in the annual Honor Manual. For non- graduate students, a parallel code extends similar principles without the full structure. VMI, the nation's oldest state military college founded in 1839, employs the identical wording: "A will not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do," integrated into daily cadet life through self-reporting expectations and peer adjudication via the Honor Court, which requires a vote for conviction. Adaptations include embedding the code within VMI's broader rat line process for new cadets, emphasizing voluntary adherence in a non-federal context where state legislative influences, such as post-2020 reforms to enhance , have prompted procedural tweaks without altering the core tenets. In contrast, Texas A&M University's of operates within a large setting, adapting the code to "An Aggie does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do," replacing "" with "Aggie" to encompass the broader body beyond mandatory military participation. This university-wide Aggie Code of Honor, formalized in the mid-20th century amid ROTC expansion, allows flexible application: members face stricter -led oversight aligned with military values, while non- students encounter it through policies, reflecting the voluntary nature of involvement in a non-federal, civilian-dominated . emphasizes and rehabilitation alongside expulsion, diverging slightly from the federal single-sanction rigidity to suit a diverse 50,000-plus .

Enforcement and Adjudication

Cadet-Led Processes and Investigations

In U.S. service academies, cadet-led processes for honor code enforcement emphasize peer accountability, beginning with informal confrontations or formal reports of suspected violations such as lying, , or stealing. Cadets, bound by the non-toleration clause, are expected to report observed infractions to designated honor representatives, initiating a structured investigation to uphold institutional . These procedures, codified in academy-specific handbooks and instructions, prioritize while vesting primary responsibility in elected or appointed cadet committees to foster and . Investigations are conducted by cadet teams under the oversight of honor committees, such as the at the (USMA), the at the (USAFA), or the Brigade Honor Staff at the (USNA). Upon receiving a report—often via an allegation notice or case call-in—cadet investigators, typically numbering from six or more at USMA to specialized teams at USAFA and USNA, gather evidence through witness interviews, document reviews, and consultations with legal advisors to establish facts impartially. This phase, completed without undue delay (e.g., within days at USAFA), formulates specific allegations of intent and act, ensuring the accused receives notice and an opportunity to respond during an initial clarification approach. Cadet in this stage reinforces the system's reliance on peer judgment, with oversight from faculty or staff limited to procedural guidance rather than decision-making. Hearings follow probable cause determinations, featuring cadet-dominated panels that deliberate on guilt. At USAFA, the Wing Honor Board—comprising nine voting cadets—requires a two-thirds majority for findings beyond , while USNA's Honor Board uses a 6-of-9 vote threshold led by cadet jurors; USMA employs similar investigative hearings with at least six cadet investigators transitioning to board review. Admitted violations may proceed to streamlined cadet sanction panels, but contested cases involve , , and closed deliberations, culminating in recommendations for outcomes like or separation forwarded to commanding officers for final approval. This cadet-centric , operational since formal codification in the mid-20th century, aims to balance rigor with rehabilitation, though presumptive sanctions like disenrollment underscore the gravity of breaches.

Punishments and Rehabilitation Efforts

Punishments for violations of the Cadet Honor Code at U.S. service academies traditionally emphasize separation from the institution, reflecting the view that integrity breaches disqualify individuals from military leadership roles. At the at West Point, cadets found in violation through the process face recommendations for separation, with alternatives including delayed graduation for up to one year or retention under strict conditions; in the 2021 exam scandal involving over 70 cadets, eight were ultimately expelled after investigations concluded that willful admission no longer mitigated penalties. Similarly, the applies punitive measures such as loss of privileges or rank alongside potential disenrollment, as seen in a 2025 investigation of nearly 100 cadets for test-related violations where admitting offenders received immediate sanctions. The employs midshipman-led boards that can recommend expulsion, evidenced by the dismissal of 24 midshipmen in a 1994 incident. Across academies, expulsion remains the presumptive outcome for substantiated cases, rooted in the principle that honor codes demand absolute adherence without partial compromise. Rehabilitation efforts have emerged as supplements or alternatives in select cases, particularly for self-reported or less severe violations, though their implementation varies and has drawn scrutiny for potentially diluting enforcement rigor. USAFA utilizes honor probation, an intensive program involving supervised and behavioral monitoring to reintegrate cadets, with studies indicating moderate success in fostering ethical awareness but limited of sustained behavioral change. Admitting violators at USAFA in the 2025 scandal underwent combined punitive sanctions and rehabilitation actions, including counseling and remedial training, prior to further . At USMA, prior to its 2021 discontinuation, the Willful Admission Program allowed self-reporters to enter developmental tracks with probationary status, aiming to encourage transparency while imposing restrictions like grade reductions and privilege losses; critics argue such measures shifted from zero-tolerance to leniency amid rising violation rates. USNA's approach, guided by its Honor rather than a codified non-toleration clause, incorporates and reflective processes through boards, though separation predominates for confirmed deceit. Empirical assessments of remediation programs, such as USAFA's, show gains in moral but underscore the challenge of reconciling rehabilitation with the causal link between unchecked violations and eroded unit trust. These mechanisms balance deterrence with retention needs, yet data from scandals reveal inconsistencies: while expulsion rates hovered near 100% in isolated pre-2000 cases, recent mass incidents have trended toward probationary retention, prompting debates on whether softened punishments undermine the codes' foundational deterrence. Superiors retain final authority over cadet recommendations, ensuring alignment with service-specific standards.

Empirical Effectiveness

Studies on Integrity Outcomes

Empirical studies on the outcomes of honor codes in U.S. service academies reveal mixed results, with evidence of some reductions in under strict but persistent high rates of violations, toleration, and low reporting among cadets and graduates. A 1999 analysis of honor systems, drawing on surveys and case studies from academies like the Academy and West Point, found that student-controlled codes with non-toleration clauses can suppress rates significantly, citing a general drop from 81% to 30% in environments adopting such systems, though military-specific data showed honor violation losses at West Point ranging from 1.61% (Class of 1960) to 4.11% (Class of 1965). However, these gains appear tied to rigorous rather than internalized , as scandals like the 1965 Academy incident—involving 109 resignations—prompted code strengthening but underscored vulnerabilities to mass violations. Surveys of former cadets indicate substantial shortcomings in fostering long-term ethical behavior. In a study of 747 resigned Air Force Academy cadets from 2002–2011, 49% admitted personal honor code violations, 62% tolerated others' infractions, and only 9% reported observed , with toleration strongly correlating with self-reported (r = .5279, p < .001). Similarly, a survey of 2,465 graduates from West Point, the Naval , and the Air Force (1959–2010 cohorts) revealed over 20% engaging in self-deceptive —denying personal violations while admitting —and increasing rates across generations, with low and stable reporting (pseudo R² = 3.44%), suggesting non-toleration clauses exert minimal deterrent effect on underlying norms. Qualitative evaluations of remediation programs offer partial optimism for targeted interventions. A 2022 analysis of the Naval Academy's honor remediation process, based on 12 essays and 6 officer interviews, showed strong support for improved moral awareness (83–100% alignment) and moderate gains in and honor , though weak evidence for broader perceptual changes in ethical growth. Broader comparisons across collegiate honor codes, including military institutions, indicate higher hypothetical peer reporting at code schools (11.0% vs. 8.7% at non-code schools), but mandatory reporting policies—prevalent at eight of 11 military-linked systems—correlate with lower actual reporting (1.4%), potentially due to reactance or stigma, questioning the overall integrity-enhancing impact. These findings collectively suggest honor codes may mitigate surface-level through structure and but struggle to eradicate toleration-driven without complementary cultural shifts.

Comparisons with Non-Honor Code Environments

Empirical studies on collegiate honor codes, which encompass systems similar to those at military academies, indicate that such environments generally correlate with lower self-reported rates of compared to non-honor code institutions. McCabe and Bowers (1994), in a survey of over 15,000 undergraduates, found that students at honor code schools reported on exams 20-30% less frequently than those at non-honor code schools, attributing this to a emphasizing peer and unproctored testing. Subsequent analyses, including McCabe and Treviño (1993), confirmed reduced misconduct levels in honor code settings through fostered social norms against . Qualitative differences further distinguish honor code from non-honor code environments: students in the former are less prone to —rationalizations like denying injury or blaming situational pressures—that justify in the latter. highlights that non-honor code students more readily employ such excuses under academic stress, whereas honor code cultures prioritize personal integrity over expediency, leading to higher observed reporting of violations (1.3% greater than in non-code schools). However, findings are not unanimous; Arnold et al. (2007) reported no significant difference in self-reported between honor code and non-honor code schools after controlling for institutional factors like size and selectivity, suggesting that code presence alone may not suffice without robust . For honor codes specifically, direct comparative data against non-code or training programs remains limited, though the academies' mandatory peer and expulsion risks appear to sustain lower violation incidences relative to broader collegiate averages, tempered by periodic scandals revealing gaps. Overall, meta-reviews affirm honor codes' role in curbing , albeit with implementation-dependent outcomes.

Controversies and Challenges

High-Profile Violations and Scandals

One of the most significant historical violations occurred at the (West Point) in 1976, when 153 upperclassmen were implicated in on an electrical exam, leading to widespread resignations and expulsions. This incident, the largest honor code scandal at West Point until recent years, involved cadets sharing answers and highlighted failures in peer enforcement of the code's prohibition against lying and . In May 2020, West Point faced its most substantial incident since 1976, with 73 cadets accused of violating the honor code by collaborating on a remote final exam amid restrictions. Of these, 55 were found in violation following investigations and hearings, but rather than expulsion, most underwent rehabilitation training and were allowed to repeat the academic year, drawing criticism for perceived leniency that undermined the code's zero-tolerance ethos. By April 2021, 51 cadets were required to repeat the year as punishment, emphasizing remediation over separation in cases involving first-time offenders. The has experienced recurrent mass cheating scandals tied to honor code breaches. In 2020, 245 cadets were investigated for cheating on remote final exams during the , exposing systemic issues with remote proctoring and the "toleration" clause, as some peers failed to report violations. More recently, in February , nearly 100 cadets faced probes for cheating or tolerating cheating on a weekly knowledge test, with dozens admitting offenses and receiving punitive sanctions alongside rehabilitation, though specifics on separations were not disclosed. At the , a 1994 resulted in the expulsion of 24 midshipmen for on an electrical engineering exam, involving unauthorized sharing of solutions and direct honor code infractions against lying and . In 2021, investigations into a physics exam led to the separation of 18 midshipmen after confirmed honor violations, primarily among second-year students, underscoring ongoing challenges in exam integrity during hybrid learning. These cases often reveal tensions between strict and efforts to retain talent, with critics arguing that rehabilitative approaches in recent decades have diluted the codes' deterrent effect.

Criticisms of the Toleration Clause

The non-toleration clause, which requires cadets to report observed violations of the honor code under penalty of equal , has drawn criticism for pitting personal to peers against institutional , thereby fostering interpersonal among cadets. This tension is described as the clause's most challenging element, compelling cadets to prioritize abstract honor over virtues like friendship and , which are essential in . Critics argue that such mandatory reporting undermines the organic trust needed for small-unit , potentially conditioning future officers to view colleagues as potential adversaries rather than reliable subordinates. Empirical assessments have questioned the clause's in deterring , with one study concluding it exhibits only "weak " in reducing despite its aspirational intent. Following the 1976 West Point scandal involving over 150 cadets, the Borman Commission report asserted that the toleration clause's unenforceability—stemming from cadets' reluctance to report due to loyalty—actually diminishes the overall honor system's credibility and deterrent power. This view posits that non-enforcement erodes collective integrity, as unreported violations signal that the lacks teeth, leading to a permissive environment where minor infractions accumulate into larger ethical lapses. Further critiques highlight the clause's rigidity in equating non-reporting with direct violation, even for trivial offenses, which can result in disproportionate punishments and stifle minor ethical discussions among peers. Added formally to West Point's code around 1970 amid rising scandals, the clause has been debated for potentially breeding a culture of betrayal rather than genuine moral autonomy, as cadets may withhold reports to avoid alienating squadmates, thus subverting the code's purpose. Proponents of , including post-scandal analyses, suggest that emphasizing positive over punitive reporting could better cultivate internalized without the interpersonal costs.

Recent Reforms and Enforcement Shifts

In response to widespread during remote learning in spring 2020, the U.S. Military at West Point concluded investigations into 73 cadets accused of violating the Honor Code on a exam by April 2021, resulting in six resignations, eight separations, and 51 academic turnbacks. As part of these reforms, the discontinued its "willful admission" process, established in to permit cadets admitting violations without automatic separation; a review found it ineffective at boosting self-reporting or curbing toleration among peers. This shift restored separation as a potential outcome for all confirmed violations, emphasizing stricter over prior leniency incentives. At the U.S. Air Force Academy, Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clark directed a comprehensive Honor Program review in January 2021 following allegations against 249 for , aiming to refine tenets, processes, and character development aligned with the code's prohibition on lying, , stealing, or tolerating such acts. Outcomes included enhanced technological deterrents and remediation, with over 90% of probationed avoiding further infractions. In early 2024, enforcement practices were adjusted for developmental stages: freshmen and sophomores confronting but not reporting violations face education-focused measures like and mentoring rather than sanctions, while juniors and seniors remain subject to penalties for non-reporting; the Honor Code oath was also introduced on the first day of basic to foster early commitment. These changes addressed declining cadet-initiated reports, which fell to 0.4% (three cases) in 2022-2023, though academic faculty now initiate most investigations. Enforcement at both academies has faced scrutiny for perceived shifts toward rehabilitation over expulsion, with West Point's superintendent describing the Honor Code as "aspirational" in recent years, centralizing final punishment decisions under academy leadership rather than cadet panels and allowing some violators—such as athletes in cases—to retain privileges like intercollegiate competition. Persistent scandals, including a February 2025 probe at the Academy involving nearly 100 cadets for test —where dozens admitted violations and received cadet-overseen sanctions and rehabilitation—prompted commitments to further bolster enforcement mechanisms based on investigative findings. No comparable structural reforms were publicly detailed for the U.S. Naval Academy post-2020, though historical enforcement remains tied to its Honor Concept emphasizing individual integrity without a codified reporting mandate.

Societal and Cultural Significance

Role in Developing Military Leadership

The Cadet Honor Code, by mandating that cadets abstain from lying, cheating, or stealing and refuse to tolerate such actions among peers, forms the ethical foundation for leadership training at military academies. At the (USMA), it is described as the cornerstone for developing leaders of character, integrating into all facets of cadet life from initial training onward to instill habits of that underpin command responsibilities. Similarly, the (USAFA) embeds the Honor Code within its Center for Character and Leadership Development, where it reinforces decision-making under pressure and fosters self-regulation essential for future officers. This code cultivates through peer-enforced , as the non-toleration requires cadets to confront violations, thereby honing skills in ethical , cohesion, and —qualities critical for unit command in high-stakes environments. Academy programs emphasize that repeated exposure to Honor Code scenarios during training builds , enabling cadets to prioritize mission over expediency, as evidenced by structured honor that simulates real-world ethical dilemmas. At USMA, this process aligns with the professional military ethic, where character—defined as moral qualities like and —directly correlates with trustworthy officer performance in and administrative roles. Research supports the code's developmental efficacy, with analyses indicating that formalized honor systems, modeled after those at USAFA, enhance traits linked to effectiveness, such as reduced tolerance for ethical lapses and improved subordinate trust. Remediation efforts following violations, including reflective counseling at institutions like the , further refine ethical by addressing root causes of misconduct, yielding measurable improvements in midshipmen's adherence to principled command. Overall, the code's emphasis on intrinsic motivation over external punishment prepares graduates to lead diverse units where ethical lapses can cascade into operational failures, as historical academy outcomes demonstrate sustained emphasis on character as a predictor of commissioned officer reliability.

Influence Beyond Academies

The Cadet Honor Code of the has directly shaped honor systems at other U.S. service academies. The adopted its Honor Code in 1959, explicitly basing it on West Point's framework as a cadet-owned system prohibiting lying, stealing, ing, or tolerating such conduct. The United States Naval Academy's code similarly derives from West Point's model, modified to "Midshipmen will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do," emphasizing self-enforcement and peer . These adoptions extended the core tenets—ethical conduct without toleration of violations—to train future officers across branches, fostering uniform standards of in military education. Principles from the Cadet Honor Code have also informed practices in civilian institutions, particularly through the promotion of student-governed honor systems. Originating in , such codes have been adapted by universities to reduce , with demonstrating lower rates in environments featuring explicit honor pledges and non-toleration policies akin to West Point's. For instance, senior colleges like maintain comparable systems, requiring cadets to report violations, which mirrors the model and influences broader collegiate efforts to instill self-regulated ethics. Graduates of West Point carry the Honor Code's emphasis on uncompromising into active and civilian pursuits, embedding these values in roles across , , and . The code's enduring effects unify ethical expectations among , contributing to a culture of that extends beyond walls into national defense and . Studies on honor remediation affirm that such systems cultivate long-term character development, enabling graduates to model principled in diverse professional contexts.

References

  1. https://www.westpoint.edu/gateway-for-current-cadets
  2. https://www.westpoint.edu/about/academy-leadership/office-of-the-commandant/simon-center-for-the-professional-military-0
  3. https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Starz00.html
  4. https://www.usafa.edu/about/honor/
  5. https://www.usna.edu/About/honorconcept.php
  6. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/550168-west-points-honor-code-returns-to-the-18th-century/
  7. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/28/nearly-100-air-force-academy-cadets-investigated-honor-code-violations-cheating-tests.html
  8. https://www.blog.westpointadmissions.com/single-post/2020/04/28/the-cadet-honor-code
  9. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467387/final-clause-in-cadet-honor-oath-made-optional/
  10. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA193820.pdf
  11. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-49.pdf
  12. https://www.nmmi.edu/about-nmmi/cadet-honor-system/
  13. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA366594.pdf
  14. https://www.west-point.org/users/usma1983/40768/docs/whitepaper000222.pdf
  15. https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/AFCW_HCRH_Jun17.pdf
  16. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1994/april/honor-code-master-or-servant
  17. https://www.usafaclasses.org/1964/honorcode.htm
  18. https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/view/315/555
  19. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/162517.pdf
  20. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20140430_art006.pdf
  21. https://isme.tamu.edu/ISME07/Bonadonna07.html
  22. https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/download/207/201/199
  23. https://academic.oup.com/book/32546/chapter/270318635
  24. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.18574/nyu/9780814737484.001.0001/upso-9780814737484-chapter-003
  25. https://academic.oup.com/book/59569/chapter/503083806
  26. https://www.west-point.org/users/usma1951/18250/whitepaper.htm
  27. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/12/24/west-point-cheating-expand-honor-code-army-ethics-guide-column/4023821001/
  28. https://www.usna.edu/Library/sca/arc-findingaids/view.php?f=RG405-3-1_e151e
  29. https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/view/329/573
  30. https://gazette.com/military/afa-may-drop-religious-reference-from-honor-code-oath/article_01bd41aa-45c1-51a3-a113-53028a06d832.html
  31. https://afcyberworx.org/previous-project/usafa-honor-code-review/
  32. https://amcsus.org/resources/a-brief-history-of-the-military-school-in-america/
  33. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3609&context=lawreview
  34. https://www.westpoint.edu/news/press-releases/west-point-concludes-honor-code-investigations-discontinues-willful-admission
  35. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/04/18/51-west-point-cadets-caught-cheating-must-repeat-a-year/
  36. https://www.usafa.edu/app/uploads/CHB.pdf
  37. https://www.usafa.af.mil/US-Air-Force-Academy-News/News-View/Article/2487336/air-force-academy-superintendent-directs-honor-review/
  38. https://go.navyonline.com/blog/what-is-the-usna-honor-concept
  39. https://www.usna.edu/Commandant/Directives/Instructions/1000-1999/USNAINST_1610.3L_Brigade_Honor_Program.pdf
  40. https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE99/Navy99.html
  41. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geMiyyQnXC4
  42. https://www.collegevine.com/faq/134168/exploring-the-naval-academy-honor-code
  43. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/december/honor-cannot-be-divided
  44. https://www.vmi.edu/cadet-life/cadet-leadership-and-development/honor-system/
  45. https://krausecenter.citadel.edu/the-honor-code/
  46. https://student-rules.tamu.edu/aggiecode/
  47. https://krausecenter.citadel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-2025-Honor-Manual-Draft.pdf
  48. https://www.vmi.edu/media/content-assets/documents/institute-regulations/VMI-Regulations-Part-II.pdf
  49. https://corps.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/The-Standard-Aug-2025-1.pdf
  50. https://catalog.norwich.edu/academicpolicies/integrity
  51. https://www.citadel.edu/graduatecollege/current-students/the-honor-code/
  52. https://mattbarrylaw.com/2022/03/21/west-point-honor-investigation/
  53. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/16/west-points-worst-cheating-scandal-45-years-expels-eight/7121457002/
  54. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/us-naval-academy-expels-midshipmen-cheating
  55. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2584&context=lawreview
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775724000955
  57. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1184652.pdf
  58. https://www.usafa.af.mil/US-Air-Force-Academy-News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-View/Article/4095987/academy-investigates-cadet-honor-code-violations/
  59. https://macarthursociety.org/cheating-without-consequences-the-rise-and-tolerance-of-mass-cheating-at-americas-military-academies/
  60. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2022/04/19/college-honor-codes-evolve/
  61. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1064643.pdf
  62. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-025-09654-8
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358789312_Honor_Codes_and_Academic_Integrity_Three_Decades_of_Research
  64. https://www.tamiu.edu/studentaffairs/documents/Decade_of_Research.pdf
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364732131_Academic_Integrity_in_Honor_Code_and_Non-Honor_Code_Environments_A_Qualitative_Investigation
  66. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/21/949025580/more-than-70-west-point-cadets-accused-of-cheating-in-academic-scandal
  67. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/21/west-point-catches-70-cadets-worst-cheating-scandal-50-years/5856130002/
  68. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/nyregion/west-point-cheating-scandal.html
  69. https://americanhomefront.wunc.org/2021-03-08/most-of-the-west-point-cadets-who-cheated-on-a-virtual-exam-will-be-allowed-to-remain-enrolled
  70. https://www.usna.edu/NewsCenter/2021/08/USNA_COMPLETES_PHYSICS_EXAM_INVESTIGATION%2C_18_MIDSHIPMEN_SEPARATED.php
  71. https://www.usafa.af.mil/US-Air-Force-Academy-News/Commentaries/Commentary-View/Article/627681/the-essence-of-usafa-cadet-led-committee-governs-honor-code-process/
  72. https://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE96/kellogg96.html
  73. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA114677.pdf
  74. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/19/nyregion/west-point-honor-code-faces-study-after-expulsion-furor.html
  75. https://gazette.com/military/usafa/air-force-academy-makes-changes-to-honor-code-at-least-1-graduate-is-skeptical-about/article_1f80de2e-486a-11ef-99e9-ff850d735b11.html
  76. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/09/12/west_point_needs_a_reset_1057834.html
  77. https://www.westpoint.edu/cadet-journey/leadership-development
  78. https://www.thefire.org/colleges/united-states-military-academy/cadet-honor-code-honor-system
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.