The Moral Question of the Single Sanction
(Robert E. Lee’s office, as he left it upon his death in 1870. In Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark)
“I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man.”
~ George Washington
Letter to Alexander Hamilton, August 28, 1788
As a practical matter, it is generally agreed that without truthfulness in discourse a society cannot successfully function, that suspicion and distrust will destroy the cooperation necessary for harmonious social relations. And with this, our W&L namesakes, George Washington and Robert E. Lee, would certainly have agreed.
For these two men, however, the foundation of personal honesty did not lie in the recognition of its social efficacy, but rather in the deeper realm of personal moral virtue. In their view, one must be truthful in his dealings because it is morally right to do so; and undoubtedly this conviction came to them from the Christian religious tradition that informed their times and their personal characters. Both Lee and Washington were men of strong faith in God and, through their many trials and triumphs, were dedicated to the pursuit of godly lives.
How, then, does this relate to the moral questions surrounding the “Single Sanction” of W&L’s current Honor System; and does it lead to the conclusion that both namesakes would support retention of the sanction? Among the many teachings of the Bible that might have influenced Lee and Washington in their formative years, are (among many others) such Old Testament passages as:
“Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.”
~Proverbs 12:22
“He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.”
~Psalm 101:7
And in the New Testament, among many others, are such as:
“Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another.”
~Ephesians 4:25
Kings David and Solomon of the Old Testament were obviously united in condemning lying as an “abomination” that clearly excluded offenders from association with the “righteous,” to the same extent that W&L’s “Single Sanction” excludes such offenders from the W&L community. (And “cheating and stealing” brought the same biblical condemnation.) In the sense, then, that W&L’s “Single Sanction” aligns with Biblical teachings, teachings that Lee and Washington must have taken to heart, it seems highly probable that they would today endorse retention of the “Single Sanction.”
But the W&L of today is not the W&L of Lee’s day, or even of 1965, the publication date of a W&L Bulletin I still possess. That bulletin interestingly records that in 1867 President Lee founded at W&L what became known as the University Christian Association, and that through it and other campus inducements students were “encouraged to realize a full and creative life through the knowledge of God.” The 1965 Bulletin further states that an “enduring adherence of the University is its dedication to the Christian ideal, although its by-laws prohibit any form of sectarian domination of the institution.”
No such explicit endorsement of “Christian ideals” exists at the W&L of today, from which place we cannot therefore expect any Biblical light to be brought to bear upon the question of the “Single Sanction,” or for the likely positions of our namesakes Lee and Washington on the matter to have any influence. Very unfortunately! Which makes it all the more crucial that our voices be heard through TGR’s efforts to protect the “Single Sanction.”
Respectfully,
Kenneth G. Everett, ‘64