Wellesley's Fabulous Honor Code

In my previous article, I pointed out that Wellesley's Honor Code is fabulous---as opposed to real. This week, we hit the books, scour the stacks, and peruse the received texts; we leave no link unclicked as we go "In search of... the Honor Code!"

The obvious starting place is the Articles of Government, which may or may not define the Honor Code. Article XII, entitled "Violation of Academic Principle," defines something called the "fundamental academic principle." It forbids several forms of plagiarism and "giving or receiving assistance" on exams. It doesn't mention quizzes and homework, and it is entirely silent on such covinous activities as lying, cheating and stealing.

There is a reference in the same article to an "honor principle," which I assume is the same thing as the fundamental academic principle. The same paragraph contains the one and only appearance of the phrase "Honor Code" in the Articles of Government:

...the individual making the report [should] file a formal written charge with the clerk, worded as follows: "I charge (student's name) with a violation of the Wellesley College Honor Code".

Presumably the clerk will know that the individual is referring to the fundamental academic principle.

The Faculty Handbook doesn't mention the Honor Code except in a section called "General Judiciary Guidelines," which is a reference to the corresponding section of the student handbook.

As far as I can tell the Student Handbook doesn't contain a statement of the Honor Code at all, only some material about the Honor Code, most of which is pleasant-sounding but content-free. To be fair, there is one paragraph that is meaningful and clear.

In addition to upholding the regulations and the spirit of the honor system personally, each member [of the College community] is responsible for the survival and success of the system as a whole. This includes guarding against and, if necessary, reporting any inadvertent or intentional abuses of the honor system by any member of the community.

Other than that, the best explanation of the Honor Code I have seen anywhere is on the Self-Scheduled Examination envelopes. It specifies a procedure for students to report suspected violations, and explains:

Our Honor Code works when we work to ensure that it is upheld. Reporting suspected violations is critical to the success of the Honor Code and to our community.

So that answers one question: are students and faculty obligated to police the Honor Code? Yes.

Ironically, the one clause of the Honor Code that is recorded most unambiguously is in practice almost universally violated. In an informal survey conducted by a professor in my department, about 20% of the students admitted that they had seen another student cheat or plagiarize, but not one of them brought a charge to the General Judiciary. Similarly, when I discovered a case of cheating in my first semester at Wellesley, nearly everyone I spoke to advised me to "handle it internally," that is, not to take the case to the General Judiciary.

This advice is, of course, dead wrong. First of all, it is contrary to legislation. From the Articles of Government, Article XII, Section 2:

"It is the responsibility of every member of the College community to report to the Chief Justice or Class Dean any apparent violation of this principle...

Again, we have to assume that the "principle" here is the Honor Code. Also, in the student handbook:

"No penalty is to be invoked for any offense... unless the case has been brought before, and the sentence determined by, the appropriate judicial body."

As I understand this, a professor who discovers cheating can give the malefactor a failing grade for the assignment, because that is an academic evaluation of the student's work, but the professor cannot impose any additional punishment without bringing the case to the General Judiciary.

There are important practical reasons for this policy:

1. The General Judiciary can order corrective actions that faculty cannot, including counseling for the student, community work, disciplinary probation, suspension, and expulsion.

2. If a student cheats in one class, she may be cheating in others. Such patterns of dishonesty can only be identified if faculty bring cases to the General Judiciary.

Finally, legal and practical issues aside, the Honor Code is a moral statement. It is supposed to make public and explicit a moral code that we as a community believe and uphold. Violations of the Honor Code are an offense against that community, and must be handled by representatives of the community, constituted in the form of a General Judiciary panel.

If professors punish dishonesty with bad grades, we reinforce the confusion between academic and moral evaluation. This confusion is prevalent, and it runs both ways. When I give out a bad grade, I sometimes have to explain to an emotional student that the grade does not mean she is a bad person. Conversely, I have heard about students who, given an F for cheating, seem preoccupied with the effect on their GPA, and miss the moral part of the message. We need the General Judiciary to communicate the values of the community in ways that a professor, as an individual, cannot.

In the next article, I will take on the Frequently Asked Question, "Are faculty bound by the Honor Code?"