Wellesley's Fabulous Honor Code

In the previous article I talked about some of the misconceptions faculty have about the Honor Code. Now I'm going to pick on the students.

A professor I know submitted a paper to an online plagiarism-detection system, which, it turns out, detected plagiarism. The student, when confronted, charged that the professor had "violated the Honor Code" by submitting the paper. What can she have meant? My only explanation, beyond that the student was clutching at straws, is that she imagines that the Honor Code prohibits faculty from actively seeking out cases of cheating. Of course, it does no such thing.

Another professor told me about a student with a similar crotchet. The students had worked on a project in pairs and the professor asked them to fill out a self-evaluation survey. One question asked the students to evaluate themselves; another asked them to evaluate their partners. One of the students explained to the professor, with impeccable logic, that because of the Honor Code, all students would answer the first question honestly, and that therefore the second question was not only unnecessary, but actually offensive, and maybe even a "violation of the Honor Code." This claim is more absurd than the first, because in addition to the assumption that all students are always honest, and that faculty are obligated to act under that assumption, it adds the further assumption that all students are entirely accurate and objective in their self-evaluation.

I often encounter a similar misconception when I teach one of the introductory programming classes. At the beginning of the semester, I give a "fire and brimstone" speech, clarifying some of the peculiarities of plagiarism in the context of computer science, and warning students against the temptation to cheat. The point of this rant is not to accuse students, a la Minority Report, of crimes they have not yet committed, but to prepare them to deal with the temptations the semester has in store.

A few students have taken offense at my implication that some of them cheat, despite the incontrovertible fact that some of them do. They explain to me with great solemnity that Wellesley students take the Honor Code "very seriously." I have no doubt that the vast majority do, in fact, take the Honor Code seriously, but for all the reasons I have explained, I am still obligated to pursue the ones that don't.

Now, I am reading between the lines, and I might be misunderstanding their views, but these stories suggest that some students are under the impression that the Honor Code requires us all to behave as if cheating is impossible. Of course, that is the opposite of the truth.

An astute reader of these articles stopped me at this point and asked a hard question: "If faculty have to police the Honor Code, how is that different from not having an Honor Code in the first place?" It's a great question, and I won't claim to have the answer, but here's an answer...

I don't think there is any practical difference between a campus with an Honor Code and one without. An Honor Code is a statement of principle, not a rule of conduct. As a rule of conduct, the Honor Code is meaningless, because it prohibits things that are already prohibited, and meta-prohibition is unlikely to decrease the rate of violation.

But it means something for a community to make a public statement of principle. It informs new members of the values of the community, and it inspires reflection. It reminds us that we are all, as individuals, responsible for our personal conduct. Yes, the community should detect and punish cheaters, but that doesn't mean that cheating is ok as long as you don't get caught. An Honor Code is a statement of the principles each member of the community aspires to, whether or not anyone is watching.

Well, I've ranted my way through several articles now without providing much in the form of a concrete suggestion. Well, here are a few:

1. Faculty should be more diligent in detecting instances of cheating and prosecuting them in accordance with legislation and the moral stance of the community.

2. Students should realize that following the rules is not the same thing as defending the Honor Code. The Honor Code requires students to detect and report violations, including cases of academic dishonesty.

3. An Honor Code is a public statement of principle, but the Wellesley community has never made its statement public, or even explicit. We assume that the Honor Code represents a set of common values, but neither we, nor anyone else, can say what they are. We should figure it out and write them down.

Like most problems at Wellesley, this one would benefit from an open, public discussion. I hope that this series of articles will prompt one.

[Followup note: it didn't.]