Princeton Notebook — Judge Upholds Honor System

Deciding the first court challenge to Princeton’s Honor System in its 92-year history, a federal judge has upheld the 1979 conviction of Robert Clayton ’82 for cheating on a biology lab test. In his $500,000 suit, Clayton, who is now a third-year student at the University of Maryland Medical School, had maintained his innocence and charged the Honor Committee with violating its procedures and denying him his rights under the Honor Code. In his 76-page opinion, handed down 19 months after hearing final testimony, U.S. Federal District Judge Harold A. Ackerman ruled, “Princeton has accorded Mr. Clayton fundamental fairness in convicting him of cheating, and that is all that the law requires.”

            Because of the broad scope of Clayton’s challenge, which even questioned the competence of students to administer the code, the decision was seen as a general validation of the Honor System. William J. Brennan 3^rd, who represented the university in the case, told the New York Times, “It was as powerful an assault as anyone has ever brought against an honor code, and the fact that Princeton’s code withstood that assault has to mean something for other universities with similar codes.”

            Thomas H. Wright Jr. ’62, Princeton’s general counsel, said: “Judge Ackerman’s decision upholds the legal soundness of Princeton University’s student Honor Code. Obviously, that is very gratifying to all of those — students, faculty, and alumni — who believe that the Honor Code plays an essential part in establishing the ethos of Princeton’s undergraduate education.”

            On the key issue of student competence, the judge wrote: “It is not this court’s role to judge the propriety of the system Princeton chooses to employ to police cheating in its student body. Entrusting members of the student body to investigate and adjudicate the alleged malefactions of their fellow students is no sin. In the absence of egregious behavior on the part of the entrusted body, Princeton’s action can be viewed commendably as a vote of confidence in the maturity of the student body.”

            At another point, he observed: “While there is no particular evidence before me on the attitude of the Princeton alumni…I surmise that some of their respect for the Code is a retrospective appreciation of the role this Code has played at Princeton in turning young students into adults who must take personal responsibility for their own actions…Princeton has decided that an honor system can have a beneficial effect on the training and education of its students, and I do not view that choice as being devoid of value.”

            In his detailed review of the case, Judge Ackerman found that the Honor Committee had committed a few procedural errors, but held that they were not significant enough to invalidate the proceeding. “I believe that [the Honor System’s] procedures were adequate to safeguard a student from being unfairly convicted of cheating. Indeed, I was impressed throughout this trial by the integrity and concern of all participants that the procedures to be followed by the Honor Committee be carried out diligently and fairly. Clayton’s hearing was, of course, not the equivalent of a trial before a judicial tribunal, but it was an impartial, fair proceeding with basic due process protections. Simply stated, I believe that Clayton got a fair shake.”

            According to the Honor Committee’s findings, after handing in his biology test, Clayton had conferred with another student, consulted a lab manual, then retrieved his paper and changed an answer. Clayton claimed that he had merely tried to corroborate the answer, then looked at his paper to see what he had written but did not change it. He appealed the committee’s decision to President Bowen, who reviewed the case over a two-week period and upheld the verdict. Clayton received a year’s suspension, returned to the university in 1980, and graduated with honors.

This was originally published in the May 8, 1985 issue of PAW.