Princeton Notebook — Honor System

The report of the Honor Committee, released last month after a year and a half of research, refining ideas, and writing and rewriting a total of four drafts, identifies several problems facing the Honor System today and outlines a set of proposals for improving it. At the same time, the seven-member panel — which consists of the current and former undergraduate class presidents — insists that the system is not in crisis and affirms its efficacy and importance. “Although the Honor Code falls short of fully achieving its goals in some areas,” the committee asserts, “we are confident that the present system is the most reliable foundation for maintaining academic honesty. It is our intention to retain this solid foundation, and [we] hope that this report will help to reshape and strengthen some of the code’s specific aspects.”

A survey of 529 randomly selected students, conducted in the spring of 1978 by two committee members, found that 17 percent (with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent) admitted to having cheated on an in-class examination at least once during their careers at Princeton. A subsequent Daily Princetonian poll — much criticized for its methodology — put the figure exactly twice as high (PAW, May 7). While the committee believes that its finding is more accurate than the Princetonian’s, it also stresses that “the incidence of cheating at Princeton can and must be lowered.”

Reviewing comparative data from other institutions, the panel noted that a recent survey at Stanford found 31 percent admitting to at least one act of cheating, and a Dartmouth poll that included plagiarism as well as examinations registered 55 percent. The best nationwide study, which was conducted in the early 1960s, shows 75 percent of all students admitting to at least one act of academic dishonesty; interestingly, it also indicates that twice as much cheating takes place in closely proctored examinations as in lightly supervised ones.

The committee’s Princeton survey revealed that 18 percent of the student body has witnessed a violation of the Honor Code here, 44 percent would not turn in a violator even if he were not an acquaintance, and 65 percent would not turn in a friend who had committed a violation. In recent years, the committee says, it has heard an average of 5-10 cases annually. “Clearly,” the panel concludes, “far more violations were observed than were reported.”

To encourage better reporting, the committee makes three recommendations: (1) that the Honor Pledge written on examination papers be re-worded to include the obligation to report violations; (2) that a graduated and more flexible penalty structure — consistent with the practice of the Faculty-Student Discipline Committee, which hears plagiarism cases — be implemented; and (3) that the present orientation program be expanded to increase student and faculty awareness of the code.

In addition, the report advocates that the committee’s jurisdiction be extended to cover not only cheating but “any form of academic fraud on an in-class examination, or any attempt to gain unfair advantage in completing an examination,” as well as lying before the committee. Though the inclusion of “breaches of personal honor” was the common assumption when the code was established in 1893, it was never embodied in the constitution and the system’s purview has narrowed over the intervening years.

Particularly if the code’s jurisdiction is enlarged, the committee feels it must be allowed greater flexibility in assessing penalties: “A graduated penalty structure is essential to the fairness and equity of the Honor System. There are a number of factors involved in an individual’s decision to cheat, and we would like to take such factors into account when deciding on a penalty. This is a common practice on the Discipline Committee and in virtually all judicial systems in Western society. In short, we think that the penalty should be appropriate to the crime.”

To protect students from temptations to cheat, the panel suggests a series of examination-room procedures, such as sitting at least one seat apart from other students, and calls on the faculty to be “more attentive to these responsibilities.” The report’s other recommendations concern such matters as continuity, record-keeping, adjustments in the composition of the panel, and the creation of a consultative Faculty Advisory Committee.

Dean of the College Joan S. Girgus issued a statement saying, in part, “Any indication that the Honor Code is not fully understood and observed is, of course, a serious matter…The Honor Committee report presents an opportunity for the entire Princeton community to reaffirm the values for which the Honor System stands and to strengthen the mechanisms by which these values are advanced.”

According to Robert M. Thomas Jr. ’80, chairman of the Honor Committee, his group will now begin a series of discussions with students, faculty, and administrators. “We are also anxious to hear from alumni and to obtain their perspectives on the report,” he said. “After we feel that all views have been presented and aired, we will reformulate our proposals — some may remain completely intact, others may be modified somewhat — and probably sometime this winter we expect to bring this up for a student vote.” Under the Honor System Constitution, amendments must be approved by a three-fourths vote of the Undergraduate Student Government.

This was originally published in the Nov. 5, 1979, issue of PAW.