Toward an Honor Code

The preliminary report on the establishment of an honor code at the College presented by the Committee on Academic Integrity at last Tuesday’s faculty meeting comes at the end of a turbulent year for Harvard, and it is all the more relevant in light of its timing. Almost two semesters after the Government 1310: “Introduction to Congress” cheating scandal, and with ramifications of that episode still making national headlines, the committee’s proposal comes as a much-needed administrative response to the debate on academic culture and scholarly integrity that has taken place at Harvard in the past few months.

The committee, which is chaired by Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay M. Harris, put forward a number of propositions, among which are the establishment of a Student/Faculty Judicial Board that would hear some cases of academic dishonesty and a mandatory declaration of integrity to be put in writing atop every examination. These measures could be effective steps in fostering a climate of stronger mutual trust among students and faculty, and it is a welcome development that the campus is beginning a dialogue regarding the adoption of an honor code. We at The Crimson hope to see progress along this front, with thoughtful participation of both faculty and students to accompany administrative efforts in all steps of the process.

The possible adoption of an honor code at Harvard is not a new idea, nor one that has been neglected in the aftermath of the Government 1310 scandal: As early as September, a few days after the University announced its investigations, the New York Times published an op-ed in which Rebecca M. Harrington ’08, a former Crimson arts editor, reflected on the history of academic integrity and administrative enforcement at Harvard. Harrington voiced her hopes that a code of honor could foster a better value system on campus.

Concerned about the idea that the fear of disciplinary action might have overtaken a sense of moral obligation to academic honesty at Harvard, Harrington asked: “Does the Harvard administration see cheating as a fundamental moral failing, or as an infraction, like underage drinking?” Harrington pointed to the words of the philosopher and Harvard graduate William James, who in a column published in The Crimson in 1888 argued that the establishment of student societies enforcing their own honor codes could do much in the way of promoting greater social responsibility and widespread norms of honesty.

An honor code that is actively shaped by the student body could be an important and significant affirmation of institutional trust, if implemented by the College. Moving away from policing, the administration would be leaving both the moral responsibility for academic integrity and the liability for dishonesty to students and their best judgment. There are great potential gains from the adoption of an honor code, and it is important that an eventual thrust toward its implementation comes after a long and animated debate among students, faculty, and administrators. The report of the Committee on Academic Integrity is a welcome first step toward the inception of such a dialogue.