(8 of 9)
U'Ren also argues that the code has such strict penalties that cadets tend to cover up wrongdoing. During his time at West Point, he says he was told that only 10% of the cheating was reported. "It's a rather ironic fact," he says, "that the code weeds out some cadets who are honest enough to report themselves for honor violations."
IK AT nat is more, says U'Ren, "West Point does everything in its power to develop a sense of cohesiveness among the cadets. They strive to develop a sense of loyalty and belonging—community.
And then they ask these men to turn each other in on honor code violations. It really is a terrible bind for the cadets."
What is happening at West Point this spring seems to confirm the findings of a study of the honor code released last October by the Federal Government's General Accounting Office, which acts as an investigating agency for Congress. The G.A.O. study said "the toleration clause" is one of the biggest problems for the members of the corps, and the longer a cadet stays at West Point, the more tolerant he tends to become of wrongdoing. Some cadets felt that maintaining a friendship is more important than reporting a fellow student and that the penalty of banishment from West Point was too harsh for minor offenses.
As the magnitude of the problem becomes more apparent, high Pentagon officials are quietly deciding that perhaps the time has come for West Point to modify the code. When he heard what was going on, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld impatiently asked aides who was administering the system at the Point and whether there was any room for discretion in the system.
If West Point does decide that its present system is unrealistic and unfair, it has two models close at hand to copy. Both Annapolis and the Air Force Academy have systems that differ in important ways from the Point's. At Annapolis, midshipmen are not required to turn each other in for violations. At the Air
Force Academy, the cadets are not supposed to tolerate infractions, but they are encouraged to talk privately with a suspected wrongdoer to learn his side of the incident. If he has a reasonable excuse, the matter can be dropped then and there. Even if the reviewing committees eventually find a cadet guilty, they can mete out punishment short of dismissal.
Although these modified systems seem to be working well, both institutions have had scandals of their own. In 1974 seven midshipmen were forced to resign for cheating on a celestial navigation exam. At Colorado Springs, 109 cadets (including 29 football players) were forced out in 1965 for stealing and selling exams or tolerating the practice; 46 left after handing around test questions in 1967; and 39 were banished for cheating or tolerating those that did in 1972.