Princeton Notebook — Reforming the Honor Code

The new Undergraduate Announcement being published this spring contains, as usual, the full text of the Constitution of the Honor System — but with a number of important changes. For the first time in its 86-year history, the constitution itself, and not just the accompanying explanatory matter, explicitly states the obligation of every student to report any observed violation. The range of violations covered by the code has been expanded to include other infractions besides simple “giving or receiving assistance.” Accordingly, the wording of the pledge has been broadened, along with the structure of penalties that may be imposed.

            These and other reforms were proposed by the Honor Committee last fall following a year and a half of study, including a poll revealing that 17 percent of the student body admitted to having cheated on an in-class examination at least once during their careers at Princeton (PAW, November 5). After several months of campus discussion, the committee submitted its recommendations to the Undergraduate Student Government caucus, which approved them, with some modifications, by the required three-fourths majority vote. The amended constitution was made available to PAW last month. 

            Under the revised Honor Code, violations include: (1) “any attempt to receive assistance from written or printed aids, or from any person or papers, or any attempt to give assistance”; (2) “any form of academic fraud on an in-class examination or any attempt to gain unfair advantage in completing an examination”; (3) “obtaining or attempting to obtain, previous to any examination, copies of the examination papers or the questions to appear thereon, or to obtain any illegal knowledge of these questions”; (4) “lying before the committee”; and (5) “inability to sign the pledge.”

            The wording of the pledge, to be written and signed on all examination papers, now is: “I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code during this examination.”

            With its broadened jurisdiction, the committee has been given greater latitude to make the punishment fit the crime, though the standard sanction has not been softened. “Under normal circumstances individuals convicted of cheating shall be subject to the following penalties: The first offense will result in a penalty of suspension for one year, or, if perjury occurs, suspension for two or three years. The second offense will result in expulsion from the university…In all cases, the committee may exercise the option of required withdrawal. When there are extenuating circumstances, the first offense may result in a penalty of probation with supervision until graduation. Under this probation, a second offense which is cheating will result in expulsion…Individuals convicted of academic fraud other than cheating shall be subject to the following penalties: The first offense will result in probation with supervision for one or two semesters. During this probation, a second offense which is cheating will result in suspension or expulsion. A second offense other than cheating will result in suspension for at least one year.”

            Not in the constitution itself, but in the accompanying text in the Undergraduate Announcement, is the stipulation that each admitted student must signify by a personal letter to the committee that he or she understands and will abide by the Honor Code before his or her entrance to the university becomes final. The introduction also states, “It is the common understanding among Princeton students that, where the Honor System is concerned, each individual’s obligation to the undergraduate student body as a whole transcends reluctance to report another student. Thus students under the Honor System have a two-fold obligation: individually, they must not violate the code; and as a community they are responsible to see that violations are reported.”

            In addition, the committee explains that while examinations are not proctored, the procedures to be followed are determined by the faculty member present, including the question of whether students are allowed to leave the room. “Students are advised to sit one seat apart from other students, to refrain from bringing books and notes into the examination room, and if possible, to avoid sitting near those with whom they have studied. The faculty member, who is present only briefly to answer questions and to pick up the completed examinations, has the responsibility to make sure the examinations are turned in by students at the appropriate time.”

            Other changes include the expansion of the committee, which is composed chiefly of current and past class presidents, from seven members to nine, and provisions for continuity of record keeping. The panel dropped its original proposal to establish in a faculty advisory committee in the face of opposition from USG members who felt the Honor System should remain exclusively in the hands of students. 

This was originally published in the May 5, 1980 issue of PAW.