S PIRITUAL DIREC TIONS: HO N O R AT S TA K E
Continued from page 19
“
To the degree
that we talk
about honor
rather than
integrity,
the wager
rather than
the goal,
we are also
talking
about the
external
rather than
the internal.
”
versions, the “honor” of a degree). What the code is about—
its telos, the thing being wagered for—is not honor, but (in
a word) integrity, the quality of remaining still in one piece,
despite the vicissitudes of life, of remaining true to one’s
principles, and thus specifically of being blameless because
one’s moral center is undamaged.
As I said, it’s way too late to undo the metonymy involved
in the way we use “honor” in these cases, but I do think it’s
worth noticing its existence, for this reason: to the degree
that we talk about honor rather than integrity, the wager
rather than the goal, we are also talking about the external
rather than the internal. To allow public reputation to be put
at risk in this particular aspect of character formation is, at
least, traditional. I don’t think that we mean, generally, for
our students to actually make public opinion the standard for
their actions, as though they would do only those things that
would bring them honor. Indeed, most of us, I suspect, put a
fair amount of energy into holding up the examples of those
who acted virtuously when it carried no promise of honor
at all, or even the risk of dishonor. Educators often quote, in
this context, the aphorism attributed to South Bend Central
High School’s most famous English teacher, John Wooden:
“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when
no one is watching”: but another of Coach Wooden’s attributed comments gets even more precisely at the distinction
between integrity and honor—“Be more concerned with
your character than your reputation, because your character
is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what
others think you are.”
Page 20 Winter 2014
Continues on page 24
CSEE Connections