![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 2nd, 2002
(no subject)
Mar. 2nd, 2002 03:42 pmLast night I had a dream that it was supposedly the end of the world, and we all had to just wait for it or something, but as we were going somewhere for some unknown purpose (to wait, I guess) I kept saying I didn't believe it. I had been among a crowd of people when someone with no authority to declare such things ran up screaming about the end of the world and everyone kind of panicked but definitely believed her. So I was pushed along, protesting the whole way. But hey, at least I was with my best friend.
What did Old (not Olde) Reed ever do to deserve the punishment of a thousand cuts? Or live burial? Because while the true ideal of Reed that has endured from the college's founding is still living there somewhere, it is covered over by those that self-righteously scream for Olde Reed, and every one of their self-righteous outbursts inflicts a new wound on the real, true Old Reed. (At its beginning the college used simplified spelling. Never would you catch an "e" on the end of "old.")
The true ideal of Reed, as far as I can tell, holds ideas and intellect above all. Ranting about dishonor and possibly oppression at the smalles trigger is not in line with this. Do people who do this actually stop to think about what the Honor Principle means before they go screaming about violations? Or do they just assume that since the Honor Principle is not codified that it can mean whatever they want it to mean at a given moment? And can J-board really bring an honor case against someone? That just smacks of conflict of interest and abuse of power.
I think it can be agreed that the Honor Principle requires honorable behavior. But the problem is in defining what "honorable" is and what it entails. Some people seem to think that whatever they take as a personal attack is dishonorable. However, I prefer to think of honorable behavior as entailing respect for others, responsibility for one's actions at all times (which includes making amends if need be, not simply not doing "bad stuff), and talking to others about honor. Too often we let things be assumed, and when we are called to clarify issues of honor, that is when the Honor Principle breaks down. Granted, yes the Honor Principle is very idealistic and probably doomed to at least partial failure because of that, but that doesn't make it fruitless to try and make it work. It may not always work on a group level, but it can work very well on an individual level. And personally, I'd rather have to weigh my actions against what I see as right rather than have to memorize a bunch of rules.
The true ideal of Reed, as far as I can tell, holds ideas and intellect above all. Ranting about dishonor and possibly oppression at the smalles trigger is not in line with this. Do people who do this actually stop to think about what the Honor Principle means before they go screaming about violations? Or do they just assume that since the Honor Principle is not codified that it can mean whatever they want it to mean at a given moment? And can J-board really bring an honor case against someone? That just smacks of conflict of interest and abuse of power.
I think it can be agreed that the Honor Principle requires honorable behavior. But the problem is in defining what "honorable" is and what it entails. Some people seem to think that whatever they take as a personal attack is dishonorable. However, I prefer to think of honorable behavior as entailing respect for others, responsibility for one's actions at all times (which includes making amends if need be, not simply not doing "bad stuff), and talking to others about honor. Too often we let things be assumed, and when we are called to clarify issues of honor, that is when the Honor Principle breaks down. Granted, yes the Honor Principle is very idealistic and probably doomed to at least partial failure because of that, but that doesn't make it fruitless to try and make it work. It may not always work on a group level, but it can work very well on an individual level. And personally, I'd rather have to weigh my actions against what I see as right rather than have to memorize a bunch of rules.