From Maclean House — The Honor System

 The following remarks are excerpted from an address by Craig J. Marx ’79, Chairman of the Honor Committee, at a meeting with the incoming Class of 1982 in Alexander Hall earlier this fall. A native of Los Angeles, majoring in the Department of Politics, Marx is a Resident Adviser and a captain of the varsity lightweight football team.

            A year ago tonight, Robert Abernethy, a former Trustee and a member of the distinguished Class of 1949, spoke to the Class of 1981, this year’s sophomore class. Of the many ideas he generously shared with us, I particularly appreciated one — that making a constructive contribution to society requires both knowledge and wisdom. He said that all things most worth doing require the best of both our intellect and our principles. In this respect, if Princeton is, in fact, to serve the nation, it must promote both academic achievement and personal integrity. It is through the Honor System that Princeton keeps this important responsibility in sight.

            The Princeton Honor System, surprisingly enough, began as a student movement — as a quest for “student power.” It was during October, November, and December in 1892 that the student body, led by the editorial pages of the Daily Princetonian, labored to define and to structure the notion of a student Honor System. The basic conception was that Princeton would place the responsibility for the honorable conduct of examinations with the student body, rather than with proctors or with faculty members. At the faculty meeting on January 12, 1893, the Princeton faculty voted to accept the terms of the student Honor System.

            The Honor System’s jurisdiction specifically includes only violations on written examinations: quizzes, tests, midterms, and finals. The Honor Committee does not handle all academic violations. The Discipline Committee hears cases on academic violations involving essays, papers, and laboratory reports. The Discipline Committee also hears cases on serious violations of citizenship, like the chronic breaking of windows, or the excessive using of fire-extinguishers (especially when there’s no fire).

            There is one other important distinction between the Honor Committee and the Discipline Committee. The Honor Committee is made up only of students: Princeton’s Honor System is student-organized and student enforced…and, therefore, it is the student’s responsibility to uphold it.

            Today, as in the past, each student’s commitment to the Honor System is based on two stipulations. The first is that you will neither give nor receive assistance during an examination. You confirm your recognition of this first stipulation by writing and by signing the following pledge on each exam: “I pledge my honor that, during this examination, I have neither given nor received assistance.” The second stipulation states that you will report any violation you see to a member of the committee. The Honor Committee realizes that this second stipulation, to report violations of the Honor Code and, thus, to turn in a fellow student, is a difficult one. Without it, however, the system would break down. I have found, and I think you’ll find also, that the greatest difference between Princeton and secondary school is the amount of trust and responsibility accorded to students. With the privilege of working in an atmosphere of trust comes the responsibility of maintaining that atmosphere for others.

            The Honor Committee is composed of the four current class presidents, and two seniors and one junior who are past class presidents. This year’s committee includes:

Karen Jones ’79, Long Beach, California

Christopher S. Shields ’79, San Antonio, Texas

Warren W. Hamel ’80, Annapolis, Maryland

Robert M. Thomas ’80, Baltimore, Maryland

James P. Bailinson ’81, New York, New York

In addition to the six of us, the class president you elect in November will also join the committee.

            Any possible violation of the Honor Code should be reported to a committee member without delay. If you should witness a violation but forget whom to contact, you could ask a Resident Adviser or a class officer. When a violation is reported, that committee member and I discuss the situation and conduct a preliminary investigation. If the report is without merit, the matter is dropped completely. However, the evidence occasionally is such that further steps are necessary, and, at this point, the entire committee is convened to hear the testimony of both the accused and the accuser. At the end of a hearing, the Honor Committee begins deliberations to seek a verdict. If the committee finds that cheating did not occur, then all records are destroyed and the situation is treated as if it never happened. If, on the other hand, cheating is found by at least 6 of the 7 members, the committee recommends to President Bowen a penalty of either a one year suspension or permanent expulsion. In the 85 years history of the Honor Code, the Honor Committee’s recommendation to the President has never been overturned.

            The continued viability of the Honor System is predicated on our willingness to accept it and to abide by it. We must also be willing to examine it and, perhaps, to institute changes necessary to uphold the principles under which the Honor Code was founded. Dr. Frederic Fox ’39, who is our expert on everything you would want to know about Princeton, once wrote: “I think of tradition as a mighty river rather than a wall. You can never step into the same river twice.” Those of us on the Honor Committee, and other students, have been “testing the water,” so to speak, by examining important Honor Code issues. For example, should the committee continue to be composed of current and former class presidents, or is there a better way to select committee members? Should the accused and the accuser meet at some point? Is the alternative of suspension or expulsion the most effective penalty structure? Is the Code itself and the fairest and most effective way to deal with breaches of academic integrity? We, as members of the Princeton community, must never fear to ask these and other important question. The strength of the Honor Code comes from the fact that although its basic principle, that of personal integrity, is immutable, minor changes, when necessary, must continue to be made.

            Tonight, I hope you have begun to gain an understanding of the Honor Code and of its importance to the University community. For the Classes of 1979, 1980, and 1981, for the faculty and the administration, for the alumni, and for the Princeton community in general, the Honor Code symbolizes an affirmation of and a dedication to the bond between integrity and knowledge. This evening Princeton asks the Class of 1982 to join us in assuming the responsibility of maintaining this bond. I hope that you will meet this important responsibility, enjoy the privilege it offers, and prosper under an atmosphere of trust that is so much a part of Princeton.

This was originally published in the October 23, 1978 issue of PAW.