"...the group believed we needed to make explicit much of what's implicit in our institutional documents, regulations, and ritual."
 
The national media in the late 1980s, brought us countless reports of alarming incidents on college campuses including date rapes, gang rapes, attacks and insults directed at gay persons, hazing and violent public displays of sexism, racism and anti-Semitism. Commentators have suggested the incidents reveal a resurgence of racism and a growing intolerance of diversity among college students.
 
USC's Vice President for Student Affairs Dennis Pruitt declined to endorse this speculation, asserting instead that regardless of whether there is an increase in intolerance, there is certainly evidence of continuing insensitivity.
 
Considering these incidents and concerned about what might be done to prevent similar events at USC, Vice President Pruitt became interested in the concept of a "Social Honor Code," a device similar to an academic honor code, but instead of focusing on in-class behavior between instructor and student, a social code would address out of class behavior in relationships between students. Fortune magazine and newspaper columnist William Buckley reported that Princeton and other universities were considering proposals which would prohibit acts that violate other students' rights, including incidents of sexism, racism, class discrimination and homophobia. "As with the academic honor code," Buckley reported, "students would be obligated to report any violations of the social honor code."

 Pruitt thought the idea warranted study, and he launched an exploration of its possible use at USC. His staff found comparable concerns and interest on many campuses but little in the way of existing codes or experience from which to draw. On the campuses where the concern took concrete form, administrators had added language to existing conduct codes which cited a general abhorrence for threatening behaviors based on the victim' s sex, race, or creed. On the same campuses, critics of the measures characterized them as window dressing or hasty political concessions. At other institutions, concern was evidenced by daring, passionate policies which incited academic freedom and free speech arguments and lawsuits by attempting to restrict "offensive forms of expression."
 
Compared to these models, the social honor code idea had merit, but a closer look brought staff back to the assumed objective of the code, and it became quickly clear that legislatively outlawing exploitive behavior and obligating students to police one another would have little effect on the problems of date rape, gang rape, hazing, racial, ethnic or sexual discrimination and harassment.
 
Recognizing that these incidents usually occur in unstructured, unsupervised settings involving bonded groups where the risk of discovery and personal accountability is low, it was argued that students don't enforce rules among themselves or report one another because they're motivated by a distinct set of values which prize peer approval more than that of the institution's. In essence, it was argued that students don't want to enforce the institution's regulations, and in their minds, they don't have to.
 
Pruitt was persuaded to shelve the social honor code idea and urged to consider the current flurry of popular press articles about business ethics, corporate cultures, and organizational values. In time he agreed it was better to first find out what ethics govern current relationships among students, compare them with what the institution expects, then identify ways the gap between what exists and what's expected could be closed without issuing additional regulations.
 
The task was begun by choosing and charging a group of faculty, staff and students in the spring of 1989. It was thought the task force or commission should be a diverse group representing exposure and experience in all segments of the student population, and interested in, or patient with, abstract, wide ranging discussions. Because advocates or spokespersons would be needed to promulgate the eventual product, the task force intentionally included persons with proven appeal or clout among students.
 
As might have been expected given these kind of qualifications, it was difficult to identify a mutually convenient meeting time and continuity suffered from meeting to meeting. Early on, members were intimidated by the ambitious nature of the task, but later the same group expressed interest in enlarging its task, asking why a code couldn't be developed for faculty and staff, and why the group couldn't consider academic and policy issues in addition to interpersonal or social conduct.
 
At times members had to be reminded not to duplicate the conduct code, not to be too specific, and to address issues in broad terms so as not to be "prescriptive". At other times the group's cohesion and it's immersion in the task made it unable to articulate concepts that to it seemed perfectly obvious. In exasperation the group joked, somebody should just tell students to simply "BE NlCE!"

In organizing its work the group agreed the eventual product should take three forms, 1) a report of what was found, that is, an account of what characterizes relationships in the campus community, 2) a summary of what's expected by the institution, essentially a concise statement of the standards it hopes will be reflected in relationships among students, and 3) recommendations about how these standards or aspirations can be communicated to students.

An account of what characterizes relationships in the campus community.
 
 To examine the question of what was currently encouraged on the campus, the group proceeded with four operating assumptions:

 1) "Students bring some things with them."
--students arrive on campus with certain interests, values, assumptions and behaviors.

2) "Student learn some things while they're here."
--the University experience affects the assumptions, value systems, and behavior of students.
 
3) "Students learn a lot from each other."
--some of the changes in attitude and behavior flow from informal influences and experiences outside the classroom.
 
4) "We can influence what they learn."
--the informal learning and peer culture may be vulnerable to purposeful intervention.

To examine what students bring with them, what they learn about how to behave, and how and when they're taught, the group elected to use "cultural audits" and "cultural perspective" study methods described in The Invisible Tapestry : Culture in American Colleges  and universities (Kuh and Whitt, 1988). In this work, it is argued that a "cultural perspective" allows observers to interpret events and appreciate how participation in "institutional cultures" or subcultures can influence individual and group action.
 
After dividing USC's student population into segments believed to represent distinctive and influential subcultures, commission members were assigned to each and asked to "audit" the subcultures by observing participants, interviewing key informants, and analyzing documents and artifacts associated with the subculture. The reports that were returned varied according to the effort of researchers. Yet on the whole, they indicated that student behavior is rarely informed by what commission members perceive to be the aims or aspirations of the institution.

A summary of what's expected by the institution.

Members of the commission believed they understood what the institution intended to encourage, and assumed everyone more or less agreed on the values that would be promoted through the University experience, but when it came to locating, articulating or translating the agreement, the group realized the importance of, and need for its work. The preamble to the University's Statement of Student Rights and Freedoms, which is published in the Carolina Community captured some of what USC considers critical to an academic community. For example, the preamble asserts that, "free inquiry and free expression" are "indispensable." It proclaims that "freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facts of academic freedom," and it gives to " all members of the academic community," the responsibility to "secure and respect general conditions conducive to the freedom to learn." The group agreed with the appropriateness of these but complained that they are not prominently displayed enough or concrete enough to impact the average student.

Values statements, ethical codes and statements of principles from various businesses, organizations and institutions were next examined. The Statement of Values and Ethics of the National Interfraternity Council, Coker College's "Standards" statement, and "A Shared Commitment" published by Florida's Eckerd College, each had features the group found appealing. Opinions divided on the degree of specificity that was needed to communicate effectively, but the group ultimately decided it should publish a list of essential or elemental values or ideals, and separately offer an amplified or illuminated version of the same which detailed behaviors inconsistent with the ideal or postulate.

Recommendations about how these standards or aspirations can be communicated.

The group enjoyed the opportunity to propose names for what had been operationally referred to as "the Code of Interpersonal Conduct." Ideas included lofty, corny, and clinical or mechanical titles, but on the recommendation of the Student Government president and the University Relations Office the last version of the group' s work was presented to the Vice President under the name "Carolina Code," later changed to the "Carolinian Creed."

The enthusiasm and optimism of the group was evident as it brainstormed about ways to market, publish or disseminate the statement. All seemed convinced the "code" would be most powerful when used as a teaching tool to introduce freshmen to "the way we do things around here." In the view of the group, Orientation, Preview Week and University 101 classes included the best or most opportunities to use the code in small groups with exercises, scenarios, or case studies which encouraged discussion, interpretation and application.
 
The group's ideas reflected agreement that the code should be published prominently in as many other places as possible. It was thought that the Carolina Community, the College Bulletin and the University Semester Schedule of Classes, should all include printed versions of the code. To get it in the hands of students and before their eyes, it was recommended that table tents, bookmarks, wallet cards, brochures, and posters or flyers be developed. The posters or flyers, it was thought, should be suitable for framing and displayed in University offices, classrooms, and residence halls. Clever, or otherwise attractive, public service displays ads, like the "don't drive drunk," and "donate blood" ads supplied by the Advertising Council and The Distilled Spirits Council, should be developed and published in The Gamecock, football and basketball game programs, and elsewhere. The code could be the theme for, or subject of, retreats or think tanks for student leaders. It should be a feature in training RA's, MAP's, Judicial Board Members, and other groups of peer advisors.
  
Seeking the advice and expertise of the University Relations Office, the student body president and the commission chairman were warned that a sequence of events which occurred since the group began its work could endanger acceptance of the code if it appeared suddenly or abruptly.  Instead, the PR pros recommended the code be allowed to "evolve and attract its followers first in a subtle or inconspicuous way." The staff encouraged the use of "focus groups" and other select groups to test the interest in, or readiness for, more University advice or instruction about how to behave. If, or after, endorsement is won from these opinion leaders, the code can be strategically introduced or unveiled with the weight of their input or approval behind it. One information office staffer suggested taping these dialogues or discussions and using clips or quotes from the students in the presentation of the end product.
 
Presented as the Carolinian Creed, it was submitted to the USC National Advisory Board, the Board of Trustees, the Student Senate, and the Faculty Senate. With each group's approval and endorsement, it became an official University document. In October 1990, at an early evening convocation on the Horseshoe, representatives of the administration, faculty, student body, and Board of Trustees assembled before a crowd of six hundred and ceremonially accepted the Creed.
                                                                                      
Since its dedication in the fall of 1990, a bronze tablet containing the text of the Creed was cast and placed on the Horseshoe. The text of the Creed has been added to many University publications, copies are mailed to incoming freshman, and framed copies hang in many campus buildings and offices.