Print
Can honor codes stamp out student cheating?
YES
Daniel H. Garrison:
Those who might cheat become those who might not
To be irreverent for a moment, the question at hand is tantamount to asking, "Can religion stamp out Sin and Death?" If you answer "no," don't worry that someone will brand you a cynic or a heretic. Now that you know the safe, commonsense answer, try for a moment answering "yes."
Reduced to its essence, an honor code puts responsibility for cheating where it belongs: in the conscience of the person who might cheat. It is widely agreed that on campuses where students have signed on to a code of academic conduct and where they themselves are its chief caretakers, cheating is reduced and moral attrition is on the side of good behavior. Those who might cheat become those who might not.
Having an honor code does not necessarily entail having unproctored examinations; nor does it relieve the instructor from taking reasonable precautions to reduce temptation. It means that every student signs a pledge stating clearly what conduct will not be tolerated and attends a student-run session explaining how the code works. Honor code schools have a student-run judiciary unit that deals with violations and imposes penalties on offenders.
Experience shows that students who "own" academic integrity on their campus are no less scrupulous about its functioning than administrators or faculty. Students are tougher in imposing sanctions on peers who are found in violation, but careful about the fairness of their procedures. Schools with an honor code do not surrender responsibility for academic fairness: They delegate it, play a support role and often participate as a minority partner in hearings and other business.
It is an old joke that an "honor system" is where teachers have the honor, and students have the system. I have seen places where this was half-true: Students had a system, but there was little honor on the part of the teachers. Honor codes work in schools where instructors jealously protect the integrity of their courses. Such teachers don't give paper assignments that are too easily plagiarized off a Web site or a paper mill; they don't ask the same exam questions year after year, nor do they give the same test to everybody in a large room. They follow through when they see signs of cheating, and they do not rely on half-baked Mr. Chips sermons when confronted with a scam; they follow procedure. Administrators do not cave in to bullying from parents, the athletic department or other outsiders. Students take time to defend their level playing field.
Honor codes are not the silver bullet that will save academia from cheating. Academic integrity is hard work. But when students, teachers and administrators are willing to take the trouble, honor codes do work.
Daniel H. Garrison is professor of classics at Northwestern University and chair of the Undergraduate Academic Conduct Committee.
* * * * * * * * * * *
NO
David R. Davis:
Honor codes can't be trusted
A recent article in the New York Times makes clear the Catch-22 ethos of the honor code system. Students have reacted strongly, the article says, to several new Web sites that exist to detect plagiarism from other Web sites. The students allege that the use of such technology undermines the trust essential to the honor code. "Using technology to catch people contradicts the spirit of the university," insisted an undergraduate editor at Stanford where the new system was being considered for use.
Such honor codes would seem to treat detection as more egregious than cheating itself. Indeed, the history of honor codes is littered with instances where administrators have resisted discovering cheating until the very enormity of it had become impossible to ignore.
A good argument might be made to the effect that honor codes can encourage and enhance the moral development of students who work honestly within such a system, as most students would. Still, that is not at all the same thing as saying that such a system eliminates cheating.
An old assumption associated with an honor system is that it works best when the group itself is composed of the "best" people who have similar values and who understand and respect honor. Indeed, honor codes are most frequently found at elite schools. Yet no clear evidence exists to prove that the system works any better there than elsewhere. Every teacher knows that the problem of detecting cheating increases with the student's ability, and cheating is hardly unknown to the "right sort" who are often under great pressure to succeed academically.
In any event, most academic institutions in this country would not qualify as elitist. They draw their student bodies from the broad spectrum of society. Most student citizens are honorable and would not engage in cheating. But there would be cheating regardless of the system, and most students would be aware of it. Inevitably students who were not inclined to cheat would be driven to conclude that, if only to ensure a level competitive field, they too would sometimes have to skirt their ethical norms--call it defensive cheating.
When society in general feels safe to leave law and its enforcement to honor codes, then universities and colleges will be able to do the same. But until then, the best interests of most will be served by a reasonable system of forethought and conventional supervision to hold cheating to a minimum.
David R. Davis is a professor of history at Temple University and treasurer of the Temple Association of University Professors/AFT.
