Honorable Behavior

This week, 45 University of Virginia undergraduates are notably absent from the thousands of college students returning to class after the Thanksgiving holiday. And three recent graduates were less-than-thankful for having to return their diplomas to the university. These academic heartbreaks were due to suspected or verified plagiarism in a physics class.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 of the 158 students suspected of plagiarism were recently found guilty of violating the school’s honor code—a strict policy that requires dismissal for anyone caught cheating. Their trials ended as recently as last Saturday. Another 28 students withdrew from the university before their cases went to trial.

These expulsions come in the wake of student survey response data that indicates a tremendous number of college students are cheating, and the numbers are on the rise. According to research performed by Donald L. McCabe of Rutgers University, founder of the Center for Academic Integrity (CAI), three out of every four students acknowledge that they have cheated.

Forty years ago, these numbers would have seemed even more staggering than they do today—cases of cheating have been steadily increasing. During the 2001-2002 school year, for example, 60 percent of students admitted to “unpermitted collaboration”; the number was 49 percent in 1993 and only 11 percent in 1963.

To combat these increases, colleges across the country have been turning to honor codes, like the one—enforced last week—at the University of Virginia, to help instill a sense of honesty and academic integrity back into the undergraduate communities.

Honor codes have been remarkably effective at limiting student cheating. Schools with honor codes report between a third to a half less cheating on tests, and a quarter to a third less cheating on written assignments, than schools without them, according to McCabe’s data.

The data and the logic indicate that more colleges should look to honor codes for help in combating academic dishonesty. In the creation of honor codes, however, schools must be smart and careful about which policies they emphasize. Honor codes that establish a community that is intolerant of all forms of cheating—from unpermitted collaboration to buying and selling papers—will be effective and will become valuable tools to thwart cheating; such policies should use peer pressure to make academic dishonesty shame-worthy. Honor codes that boast heavy-handed “one strike, you’re out” punishments, however, will be counterproductive to creating the necessary atmosphere to criticize and reform cheaters.

According to a Nov. 2 New York Times article, the University of North Carolina seems to be selecting an effective honor code policy. Like other schools, UNC is considering a new grade “XF,” which has been designated to indicate that cheating was the reason for failure. This is a positive change that should be adopted by more schools. When failure and guilt are not enough of a deterrent, the shame of a scarlet XF might do the trick.

The University of North Carolina may also institute a policy of publishing anonymous descriptions of cheating incidents in the school’s campus newspaper. And while individual students are not explicitly named as cheaters in print, actions like these help to change the atmosphere of cheating on campus—essential for honor codes to be effective. If three-quarters of students engage in cheating, signing an honor code in hand—but not in spirit—will do little to change the atmosphere of a college. If, on the other hand, students understood that they hurt one another, and themselves, by cheating, and if there were examples of cheating—like those printed in the paper—that could be discussed and criticized by students, the stigma against cheating would grow stronger.

Schools must also remember that there is a danger in enforcing too harsh a punishment policy. Some schools, like the University of Virginia, have the same punishment—expulsion—for every case of academic dishonesty. These “one-strike” policies don’t allow for mistakes, and are often seen as too harsh—making some students and teachers uncomfortable about turning cheating in when they see it.

A CAI survey of more than 1,000 faculty members at 21 schools reported that over a two-year period, a third ignored cheating when they saw it in their classes. When policies seem harsh or are confusing, professors don’t want to bother. Similarly, students may be reluctant to report their fellow students for what they may consider minor infractions—few would want their roommate expelled for doing a problem set with a friend.

In an attempt to pressure students into reporting their peers for cheating, certain schools, like Duke University, will penalize students who fail to report cheating that they see. A more effective policy, however, would have a much lighter punishment for a “minor” or “questionable” first offense. This policy might encourage students and professors to report incidents, knowing that if it is was a mistake or confusion, the student won’t be expelled and knowing that if they are reporting a repeat offender, they may be dealing the final blow, but the student had been given a chance to correct his ways or be more careful.

Academic dishonesty is a serious concern, and honor codes can be part of the solution, but schools must stay away from “one-strike” policies. Rather, they should make peer-pressure and shame the reason that students choose not to cheat.

Judd B. Kessler ’04 is an economics concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.