Princeton Notebook — Testing the Honor System

Through all the changes of the past decade, Princeton’s Honor System — established in 1893 by undergraduates in what may be regarded as an early assertion of “student power” — is one tradition that has remained intact. While West Point has been plagued with cheating scandals and several prominent universities have been forced to reinstitute proctored examinations, Princeton’s Honor System has continued to function effectively. There have been some disputes about, and adjustments in, the procedures for trying alleged violators of the code, but reported infractions have been rare and the perception has endured that cheating is an anomaly at this university.

Last month the Daily Princetonian decided to test that perception by polling the student body. Of the 553 randomly selected undergraduates who were surveyed, 12 percent admitted to having violated the Honor Code on an in-class examination, though three-quarters of this group said they had done so “rarely.” (The meaning of this result is somewhat ambiguous, however, for the question did not specify whether it was intended to include failures to report having observed someone else cheat.) As for their colleagues, 57 percent of the entire sample thought cheating is “pretty rare” at Princeton, 29 percent felt it occurs “occasionally,” 5 percent “pretty frequently,” 3 percent “never,” and 5 percent “don’t know.” Fully 93 percent said they preferred the Honor System to having professors proctor examinations, as against 5 percent who favored supervision.

            Nonetheless, the poll revealed a striking reluctance to comply with the code’s requirement that students report any observed violation. Some 38 percent indicated that if someone they did not know was involved, they most likely would either “do nothing about it” or merely “warn the person involved but not report it.” Only 30 percent affirmed, without qualification, that they would report the incident. The remaining 11 percent replied “don’t know.” In the case of a “close friend,” the reluctance was even higher: 54 percent would keep quiet, 28 percent would first talk to the person and then decide, 10 percent would definitely turn him in, and 8 percent didn’t know.

            Administrators and student members of the Honor Committee were disturbed by the survey’s findings. President Bowen and Dean of the College Neil L. Rudenstine ’56, who served on the Honor Committee as an undergraduate, made statements to the Princetonian emphasizing the seriousness of the obligation to report violations. Both also suggested that part of the reluctance to report might stem from the “inevitable uncertainty” surrounding such cases. As Bowen put it, “The experience of the Honor Committee reveals that making judgments about other people is a difficult and sometimes confusing process.” Similarly, Rudenstine noted, “It’s clear that many of the cases that go to the Honor Committee are based on misimpressions.” He said he felt that going to the person first and giving him a chance to explain is a valid response.

            Moreover, Rudenstine told the Prince, “If you are anywhere in the 50-50 ballpark [on reporting violations], you have some effective maintenance of the system. If you combine that with a big proportion of people who don’t cheat at all, the chance of getting high reporting capability is pretty good.” He added that the greater reluctance of students to report close friends was offset by the fact that few incidents would be likely to involve close friends.

            Honor Committee Chairman Thomas P. Mullaney ’77 pointed out that while refusing to report a violation is “a philosophical violation of responsibility,” the code contains no sanction against nonreporting and the committee has no power to compel compliance. The letter of understanding which all Princeton undergraduates must sign before matriculating stresses that “both principles are necessary for the satisfactory operation of the system.”

            Another member of the committee, Christopher S. Shields ’79, contended that the reluctance to report was due in part to the panel’s inability to recommend any penalties other than expulsion or suspension for one year. “You can cheat on an unimportant quiz or a major final and receive the same penalty,” he told the Prince. “We specifically know of instance of cheating this year” which have gone unreported because witnesses don’t’ want to “bear the weight of someone’s being expelled from school.” If the Honor Committee were given the flexibility to make the penalties fit the crime, he said, “The number of violations reported would double.”

            Reluctance to report violations varied according to the respondent’s field of study. Only 26 percent of the science and mathematics majors would not turn in someone they did not know, as against 42 percent of those in the humanities and 47 percent in the social sciences. Likewise, if the violator were a close friend, 45 percent of the scientists and mathematicians would not report him, 52 percent of the humanists, and 65 percent of the social scientists.

            According to Eric S. Lander ’78, director of the poll, the margin of error for the sample is plus or minus 4 percent. Compared with the total undergraduate population, the sample was found to underrepresent seniors slightly, and the results were weighted to compensate. The response rate to the questionnaire was 71 percent.

            The Princetonian reported its poll results on the same day that a Princeton Today program was being held on campus, and the findings were a topic of discussion at an alumni-student session in the evening. Although several alumni expressed concern that 12 percent admitted to having violated the Honor Code, one alumnus with many years of experience in teaching said he found that figure encouraging. “You have to realize that the corresponding rate at many other institutions is closer to 90 percent,” he told the group. A few others ventured that had a similar survey been taken when they were undergraduates, the outcome probably would have been about the same.

            “There’s never been a perfect batting average,” Rudenstine told the Prince. “An 88 percent positive return is a by-and-large good return.” Bowen agreed that the Princeton figure should be viewed in comparison with rates at other institutions. (In fact, a recent poll at the University of Pennsylvania found that one-third of the student body had cheated at some time.) Even so, Bowen observed that the 12 percent incidence at Princeton “is obviously higher than one would like to see it. Every instance of cheating is cause of concern.”

This was originally published in the May 2, 1977 issue of PAW.