History of Student Conduct at NCSU
As NC State celebrates the 125th year since its founding in 1887, the Office of Student Conduct is proud to present this brief history of Student Conduct at the University. The University has evolved over the years from a small group of faculty intent on maintaining the social mores of the day to a high tech, dynamic environment focusing on ethical decision making for the benefit of a global community. If you participated in the student conduct process at NC State in any fashion, we encourage you to provide us with your memories by contacting our office.
A Brief History of Student Conduct at NC State University
The first known “Code of Student Conduct” at NC State appeared in the Announcement of the College of Agriculture and Mechanicals Arts in 1989, prior to the opening of the college on October 3rd. The announcement states “Every pupil on becoming a member of the college thereby pledges allegiance to its rules.”
In the Beginning: Room Captains, Demerits and Mrs. Holladay’s Missing Hens:
From the beginning, students have played a small but significant role in their own self-governance. An early description of life in Holladay hall explains that each room of men had a “Room Captain” whose responsibility it was to maintain order within the room. Room Captains submitted weekly reports to faculty regarding the activities within the room. In addition to the rules adopted by faculty, room captains soon adopted additional regulations to help in maintaining order in the rooms.
During their third meeting, the faculty determined that a demerit system was the best option for maintaining discipline among the students. A full listing of offenses is not available, but most students are recorded as receiving between two and ten demerits based on the severity of the behavior. Actions that would earn students ten demerits included missing class, using profanity, or being disorderly during prayers. Students earning 100 or more demerits were dismissed from the University.
While individual faculty members were authorized to assign demerits, more serious offenses were often decided by the faculty body as a whole. On December 8, 1891, a student was assigned 25 demerits for eating lettuce that had been taken from the school’s garden. The number of demerits was later reduced to 15 by faculty vote and a letter was sent to the student’s father letting him know that his son “was doing very badly in his studies and was liable to be dropped.”
On November 25, 1889, W.P. Henley became the first student ever dismissed from the University. According to minutes from the faculty meeting, Mr. Henley left the college at night without explanation and was therefore, “removed from the rolls.”
In March of 1891, a case involving the theft of Mrs. Holladay’s hens presented the first known opportunity for students to participate in the disciplinary process. Mrs. Holladay had reported to her husband, President Holladay, that two of her hens and a plate of cookies had been stolen recently and asked that he investigate the matter. The faculty dutifully interviewed each student individually and after a week of questioning learned that some students had, in fact, taken chickens. However, when questioned further, the students claimed that they had stolen the chickens from the University’s chicken coop and not from Mrs. Holladay.
Rather than decide the case themselves, a few faculty proposed that the matter be presented to the students and allow them to recommend an appropriate outcome. After presentation of the materials, the remaining students discussed the case and issued a surprising result. The students began by chastising the faculty for being less stringent in prior cases: “We, the students of the A & M College, do not think that the actions of the faculty on the cases of the past have been as stern as they had told us it would be. We think there has been a case before the faculty that was not punished as it should have been; therefore, we cannot inflict a punishment that would have been justifiable under the circumstances.”
But when it came to issuing an actual sanction, the student jurors showed incredible restraint –recognizing the seriousness of the behavior while acknowledging the conflict between their current role as jurors and their own misdeeds as students. “We recommend that the faculty demerit them heavily enough to keep them under restrain. As for the two that lied, we would only say that the faculty inflict the punishment for that crime. Our character cannot be stained by this lying. We all feel that our conduct has been such that we cannot decide to suspend or expel them. The question would have been decided much quicker had the faculty said: ‘Let him who is without crime cast the first vote.’”
Beginning in 1891, a committee of faculty and President Holladay was formed to “deal with as many cases of discipline” as possible. Despite the committee’s function, several serious cases still made their way to the faculty for resolution.
By 1893, the role of room captains had diminished at the University as weekly room reports began to fade. With more dormitories on campus, the number of students living in each room diminished, making the need for room captains obsolete.
Military Discipline and the “Thug” Rebellion:
In 1899, the Board of Trustees approved a request by the University’s new President, Dr. George T. Winston, that the students be placed under strict military discipline. Among the various changes was a requirement that students wear uniforms and perform military drills regularly. To aid in maintaining discipline, students were commissioned as officers and assigned as “officer of the day.” These individuals made daily inspections of student rooms to ensure they were clean, that students were present in their rooms during scheduled study periods, and that the lights had been turned off by the prescribed time. 
Perhaps most controversial was the requirement that students stay on campus during the entire week except Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Beginning in 1900, the senior class requested that they be granted certain liberties not extended to other classes. On one particular evening, a meeting addressing the request was held among the seniors and a committee was sent to the President's house at 9:30 PM to deliver the petition. The President, answering the door in his nightshirt, refused to even consider the petition and sent them away.
In response to the President’s rebuff, the senior class voted unanimously that all commissioned officers would remove their insignia and fall in line with their respective companies. Before the end of the day, word was given to the senior class that liberties would be granted. Commissioned officers happily replaced their insignia and took up their posts once again.
Four years later, seniors found themselves in a similar situation when the Board of Trustees approved a resolution strictly limiting student liberties. A description of the “1904 Rebellion” found in the 1905 Agromeck entitled “’Thug’ History expresses the frustration held by seniors:
“It had been the custom of the college to allow all the members of each year’s senior class to visit Raleigh at any time provided that in doing this no class or other college duties are neglected by those thus privileged, the supposition being that a man being under the discipline of the college for three years was capable of enjoying special liberty without abusing same. The class of 1905 was brought up to look forward to this liberty but when the eventful day arrived and ’05 men were really seniors this privilege was suddenly and entirely removed. The senior class was put on a level with the freshman class and yet the burden of the military discipline of the college rested upon the senior’s shoulders.”
In early September of 1904, the senior class reacted to the new regulations by submitting a petition to the faculty protesting the Board’s resolution and allowing for the reinstatement of senior privileges. The faculty responded by passing a unanimous resolution stating its opinion, “that the regulations of the Board of Trustees in regard to the liberty of the members of the student body are wise and should be rigidly enforced.”
Two days later the senior class summoned a meeting to gather a petition of the entire student body but was stopped from doing so by President Winston. The description in the 1905 Agromeck explains that “in spite of the fact that the seniors had listened patiently to his fiery and often faulty logic, he refused to let the class hold a meeting and remained in the room until he class had disbursed.” The class again tried to gather itself in front of the Pullen Building but was again disbursed by President Winston. During his disbursement of the crowd, President Winston referred to the class members as “thugs,” a name that stuck and was ultimately seen as a badge of honor among the class members. Soon following, the entire class agreed to honor the protest by removing themselves from the school.
Notes from a faculty meeting on September 10, 1904 provide some insight into the role of the student’s parents: “Typical letters and telegraphs from parents of the rebellious members of the senior class were read to the faculty. They showed universal approval of the action of the faculty concerning these students.”
Although the students had withdrawn, the University allowed many of them to return and by October 15th, most of the seniors had returned. Several were refused re-entry, however, including Mr. Howard who was declined “on account of his previous record.” The 1905 Agromeck description summarizes the feelings of the seniors towards the rebellion: “The ‘thugs’ accepted the situation…as gracefully as possible and resumed their college work but the heart of every man is true to the ‘lost cause’ and in the years to come the word ‘thugs’ will serve as the binding link between the true members of the class of 1905.” The description concludes with a quotation from a source unknown: “Men seldom, or rather never, for a length of time, and deliberately, rebel against anything that does not deserve rebelling against.”
Perhaps as a measure of compromise, President Winston recommended in September of the following year that “liberty to visit Raleigh be granted to seniors for two evenings in the week instead of one.” In September of 1906, a resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees allowing “seniors to be granted general liberty, juniors to have liberty on Fridays, Saturdays and Sunday, sophomores on Saturdays and Sundays, and Freshman and short course on Sundays.”
Hazing and the 1911 Building:
The hazing of first-year students (or “freshing” as it is sometimes referred to) at the University has likely existed to some extent from the University’s inception, but became a more serious issue as new classes of students entered and were expected to show deference to upperclassmen.
Hazing often began as first-years were attempting to register for their classes. As a result, first-years were often redirected to Shaw University or to the local jail to register for classes. A brief description by the senior class in the 1909 Agromeck describes the lessons imparted: “One hundred and twenty-five of us registered, and, although we were strong in numbers, the “Sophs” soon made us weak in the knees. They gave us the best of attention, persisting in calling at all hours of the night, and as they usually forgot their cards, they left their names on us in beautiful black and brown letters.”
Of course, once the first-years became sophomores themselves, they saw it as their duty to impart the “lessons” learned to the newly minted first-years. As one junior in 1909 put it: “Having been trained by the Sophomores who preceded us, we were resolved that 'our' Freshmen should have the results of our experiences and should lose none of the training which transforms a self-important Freshmen into a well bread college man. If a man could spend no longer at college, he would be well repaid in being a Freshman.
Among the most dramatic forms of hazing during the time was “blacking.” A 1905 issue of the University of North Carolina Magazine describes “blacking” as “the application of blacking, paint, or any other offensive or injurious substances to the persons of Freshman.” Another description, taken from a personal account unrelated to NC State describes blacking as a much more intrusive process: “The victim was stripped naked and bound securely to a bed with his legs open. Boot blacking was then applied liberally to all his private parts whilst he was jeered at and tickled with feathers and poked with sticks. People were invited to watch the spectacle, which was noisy and raucous.”
Several efforts were made by faculty and students to end the practice of hazing. As early as December of 1894, the Lezear Literary Society - an organization that described itself in the 1904 Agromeck as an “aristocracy of merit” – had petitioned the faculty to make expulsion the remedy for acts of hazing.
In 1906, the minutes from the Faculty meetings describe a series of hazing related incidents resulting in the dismissal of several students. Reacting to the dismissals, the Sophomore class petitioned the faculty to allow the dismissed students back into the University: “The hazing that is carried on for the past few days was not in accordance with the wishes of the class and contrary to an agreement made in class meeting held last May…We solemnly promise that if the faculty can see fit to reinstate the two members expelled, that there will be no more blacking of any kind during the entire college year.” Ironically, one of the signers of the sophomore petition, R. Long, was the subject of a faculty meeting just a few weeks later. On September 26, 1906, the faculty minutes read, “The President stated that t
he object of the meeting was to investigate some recent hazing. On recommendation of the discipline committee, MESSSRS R. Long…, after a hearing, was dismissed from the college for hazing.”
The fall of 1907 began as the sophomores “proceeded to discharge [their] duties as Sophomores, as established by precedent – amusing the Freshman.” In October, the sophomores responded to a suggestion by Dr. Winston by challenging the first-years to a class fight. The first-years accepted the challenge and the fight took place in what is now Pullen Park. According to the 1911 Agromeck description, the fight caused an uproar in the community and resulted “in the complete abolition of even the mildest form of hazing by bringing to light the opinion of the general public as regards hazing and the institution which tolerated it.” After conversations with President Hill and Governor Glenn, the first-year class made the decision to end the practice of hazing at the University.
The class of 1911 managed to keep their promise and refrained from the practice of hazing. In his annual report to the Board of Trustees in 1910, President Hill wrote that “there has been absolutely no hazing throughout the year and I trust that this practice will not reappear.” In honor of their efforts, the University named it’s newest building after the Class of 1911.
The Emergence of an Honor System and Student Self-Governance
In his annual report to the Board of Trustees in 1911, President Hill acknowledged the difficulty that had developed in upholding academic integrity in the classroom. In response, President Hill announced a new system of self-governance that had been formed during that year and which serves as the basis of the University’s current conduct system:
“The college has suffered much from the fact that some students in spite of the watchfulness of their teachers, would cheat in examinations. For some years past, the question of getting the students to vote out all cheating and to pledge themselves to report to a council their own members all attempts at cheating has been adjudicated. A few months ago, largely through the activity of Trustee Gold, the students decided on this course and the system has been put into effect. It is too soon to predict what will be the result of the new plan, but if it succeeds as well as the movement against hazing did, it will be a great triumph of right and manly living and thinking.”
Despite adopting a set of rules governing cheating at the University, President Hill remained dismayed by the level of cheating that occurred. In 1916, President Hill asked the faculty to “consider the advisability of continuing this system or abolishing it altogether.” The answer came during the next meeting of the faculty when an Honor Council was formed where all “acts of dishonesty among the students” were to be referred. The Council was composed of four faculty members and three students – one from the Senior, Junior, and Sophomore classes respectively.
Although the Honor Council continued to be recognized by the faculty, the War Department primarily handled disciplinary matters after taking over the activities of the college during World War I. During this time, enrollment in the University dropped significantly as students and faculty participated in war activities.
In 1920, the first official efforts were made to develop a system of student self-governance at the University. In May of 1921, a committee composed of President Riddick and members from the Board of Trustees met to prepare a letter to students on self-government and to set up regulations.
The first bylaws passed by the new Student Government on October 4, 1921 focused primarily on student discipline. The bylaws strictly prohibited “any severe form of hazing, such as hair-cutting, blacking, et cetera,” but left minor forms of hazing to the discretion of the Council. The rules also prohibited academic cheating and “any offensive conduct that is likely to affect the reputation of the College, such as discourtesy to passers-by or members of visiting teams.” Consistent with the times, the “bringing of women on the campus for the purpose of illicit sex” was also “strictly forbidden” and required mandatory expulsion. In total, students were “supposed to act the part of a gentleman.”
The Rise of Academic Misconduct and the Faculty Proctor System
According to a brief history of the Honor System prepared by Jeff Mann in 1979, the early 1930s saw a sharp increase in the number of academic cheating cases at the University. As a result, Mann described that the honor system - which had been administered by Student Government up until that point - was “scrapped” in favor of a faculty proctor system. A description provided by Student Government in the 1935 Agromeck explains that “as an experiment the Student Council temporarily inaugurated the Proctor System by which all examinations and daily tests were conducted by student proctors with the aid of the faculty.” Mann continues his description by explaining that while the Student Council continued to hear cases related to academic integrity, the administration of the college had “ultimate review capacity” and “could alter any decision by the student board.”
The addition of a proctor system (and likely the increased emphasis on academic integrity by the student body as a whole) appears to have quelled the rise in cheating instances. In his review of the Honor System, Mann describes that cheating was “eliminated almost entirely,” and in 1939, responsibility for management of academic integrity issues was again returned to Student Government.
As Student Government continued to develop and divide itself into sub-committees (including the Student Judicial Board), the administration continued to play a strong and authoritative role in the student discipline process. A 1955 review of the student disciplinary process described that although hearings were adjudicated by students, “all acts of the Judicial Board were subject to the approval of the administration.”
In Loco Parentis and the Code of Student Conduct
The discplinary system at NC State remained reletively stable during the 1950's and into the 1960's. Although academic matters were handled by the Student Council, the majority of non-academic matters were handled by the Dean of Students Office. The issues dealt with by the Dean of Students included a staggaring array of issues - everything from classroom absences and tardiness to serious criminal offenses. As the University continued to grow rapidly during this period, the number of students and issues involved quickly began to overtax the administration's ability to maintain a culture of character and integrity.
At the same time, students at NC State and around the nation became increasingly aware and critical of role that universities were taking in the lives of their students. Some considered this role to be overly authoritative and paternalistic. Indeed, until the early 1960's, American Universities assumed the role of students' parents while they were enrolled. Known as the doctrine of In loco Parentes ("in place of the parent"), this philosophy was supported by society as a means to educate students not only academicly, but also morally. As a result, University's frequently stepped into the lives of their students by regulating who they could form relationships with, when they could leave campus, what issues could be discussed on campus, and a host of other private concerns. Perhaps most important to this philosophy was the belief that Universities be able to discipline students without concern for disciplinary hearings or procedures.
At NC State, the disatisfaction felt by students during this period resulted in creation of the "Campus Code." The code became part of the Student Government Consistution and consisted of an Honor Code and the Campus Code. The Honor Code stated simply that "you are on your honor not to cheat, steal or lie; and if you see another student doing so, it is your duty to report him to the Dean of Students Office of a member of the Student Judicial Board." The Campus Code was similarly breif and stated that "you are bound on your responsibility as a gentleman and a scholar to see to it, insofar as possible, that your fellow students do likewise."
The "Student Judicial Board" was provided the task of insuring a fair trial for students accused of violating the Honor or Campus Code. Initially, there were separate Boards for women and men on campus. In 1969, Student Government established the Judicial Affiars Office and appointed a student Attorney General whose role it was to conduct investigations and ensure the presence of witnesses at trial.
Although the new system had far greater student input, it was not necessarily efficient. John A. Poole, Assistant Dean of Men, bemoned the lack of authority exercised by the Attorney General by citing a few specific examples: "Investigations of cases have been slow, on occassion not thorough and therefore hearings on campus have been delayed 3 to 6 weeks...the investigation staff changes weekly and regular office hours are not kept." Perhaps most troubling to Mr. Poole, however, was the sense of apathy that existed among students in the role: "there has been a failure to enthusiastically uphold student law...Students are no longer willing to support generalities such as the ones outlined in the honor and campus codes. It is now impossible...to send a student before the judicial board for dropping his pants in front of a group of girls at a fraternity party."
Mr. Poole's frustrations were heard. In 1970, Student Government laid out a more comprehensive Code of Student Conduct which provided detailed definitions for each charge and the range of sanctions to be imposed. In 1972, Donald H. Solomon, an attorney, was hired by the Division of Student Affairs as the first Assistant Dean of Student Development - a precursor to today's Office of Student Conduct.
The latter part of 1972 brought additional changes, including the re-emergence of the Honor Code. As a tip of the hat to tradition, the Code stated simply that "North Carolina State University is committed to upholding the standards of academic integrity as a vital part of the University community. Participation in any form of academic misconduct is a violation of the student law and is subject to the prosecution under those laws." In addition, new changes were made to the student disciplinary procedures to ensure that each student received a fair and unbiased opportunity to challenge the charges against them.
Following the emergence of the student Code of Conduct, the majority of energy surrounding student discipline centered on the prevelence of cheating behaviors. Since this time, several committees have established themselves with the purpose of revitalizing the campus culture around academic integrity. Although much effort has been maintained in this area, the University has continued to see a steady stream of instances involving student cheating.
Looking Forward:
NC State currently enrolls about 35,000 students and has expanded to include a presence in every county in North Carolina. Over the past 125 years, the University has evolved from a small group of faculty intent on maintaining the social mores of the day to a high tech, dynamic environment focusing on ethical decision making for the benefit of a global community.
As the University continues to grow and develop, the emphasis will continue to be placed on issues of character building, integrity, and decision making. Students interacting with the student disciplinary process are challeged to reflect on how their decisions impact both themselves and their community.
References:
The information conatained throughout this breif history is primarily credited to the research of others. A search of University Archives, Student Government documents, and various student publications revealed a continuing interst throughout the years in the history of the student conduct system at NC State. Among the most comprehensive resources used included:
- Author Unknown (Date Unknown) - Rules Governing teh Conduct of Students and The Development of Student Conduct
- Mann, Jeff (1979) - History of the Honor System/Student Judical Program at North Carolina State Univaersity at Raleigh.
Office of Student Conduct | 1115 Pullen Hall | 919-515-2963
Campus Box 7321 | Raleigh, NC 277695