Report of the Honor Committee

PREFACE

Throughout the history of Princeton’s eighty-six year old Honor Code, the University community has periodically engaged in a review of the Honor System’s efficacy. Sometimes this review has questioned the very idea of an honor system; more often it has questioned the specifics of our particular Honor System. Always it has reaffirmed the basic concept, and occasionally it has resulted in procedural changes. Almost always this review has taken place upon the instigation of the Honor Committee. In this regard, the present review by the Committee will be no different. 

            Approximately two years ago, the Honor Committee undertook an effort to identify any problems which might be facing the Honor System. Six months later we began to develop our findings into written work which served as the earliest drafts of this report. We were particularly concerned at that time with various aspects of the faculty’s relationship to the Honor System and with the issue of whether a more flexible penalty structure should be available to the Committee.

            We did not undertake this project in a spirit of crisis, nor did we complete the writing of this report in such a spirit. Rather, the report was written slowly and carefully, with an effort to be thorough and precise. We now have a much clearer idea of what problems exist, and we believe that some of them deserve immediate attention. They are not simple problems, though, and they do not have simple solutions. We are not asking that the Honor Committee’s analysis and recommendations be accepted on blind faith. These are questions which are not yet answered to our satisfaction, and recommendations which require additional discussion. We certainly have no illusions that we alone can provide solutions to the complex problems which are discussed in this report. The Honor Committee, is, however, in a unique position to identify problems and to provide the background necessary for an informed and intelligent discussion. We feel quite strongly that data such as those provided by the Honor Committee poll conducted in the spring of 1978 (Appendix Two) cannot be adequately interpreted without a full understanding of the actual operation of the Honor System.

            Although the Honor Code falls short of fully achieving its goals in some areas, 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 our hope that this report will help to reshape and strengthen some of the Code’s specific aspects. The Honor Committee shall continue to provide guidance, but this will be primarily by encouraging a thoroughgoing discussion and constructive debate on the conclusions and recommendations which we propose below. It is the entire community — students, faculty, administrators, and alumni — that bears the ultimate responsibility for the continued effective functioning of the Honor System. 

Image

Princeton Alumni Weekly. November 5, 1979.

TEXT OF THE REPORT

            The first major effort to identify specific problems with Princeton’s Honor System was a poll conducted in the spring of 1978 by two Committee members. The poll attempted to find, as accurately as possible, how many students have violated the Honor Code, how many students fail to report violations, and how adequately (or inadequately) students understand the Honor System.

            The polling technique used is known as the Randomized Response Technique (RRT). The actual methodology of the poll is described in detail in Appendix Two. The RRT is a polling technique which, if conducted properly, can render highly accurate responses to sensitive questions. 

            The poll indicated, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6.2 percent, that 17.1 percent of Princeton students, at some point in their careers here, had violated the Honor Code. Taking the margin of error into account, we believe the actual figure is probably between 10.9 percent and 23.3 percent.

            The poll questions did not include the number of times the respondent had cheated. Thus there is no indication whether this rough 10 to 23 percent figure represents isolated or repeated incidents of cheating. While any cheating is a cause for concern, it might be possible that roughly 10 percent of the student body cheated only once, representing a small percentage of cheating acts per examination. At the other extreme, if roughly 23 percent of the student body cheats regularly, we would be extremely alarmed. We think it probable that the true percentage is somewhere in the middle. 

            The poll also indicated that 18.4 percent of Princeton students have witnessed a violation of the Code; the margin of error for this statistic is ± 9.3 percent. Clearly, far more violations were observed than were reported. (The Committee in recent years has heard, on the average, five to ten cases a year.) In a separate finding, the poll indicated that roughly 44 percent would not turn in a violator, even if he or she were unknown to the witness. Roughly 65 percent of students, according to our data, would not report a friends if he or she had committed a violation. Again, these are approximate figures, but significant enough to indicate that there is a very real reluctance on the part of students to report violations of the Honor Code.

            The responses to a series of separate questions in the poll indicated that the student body’s knowledge of the workings of the Honor System was disturbingly inadequate. In questions of Honor Committee membership, penalty structure, and procedure, the responses showed a general ignorance.

            There are no statistics available concerning cheating at Princeton in the past. Thus, we have no way of making a direct comparison with past experience.

            In order to achieve some perspective on these poll results, the Honor Committee searched extensively at other universities and at polling institutions for statistics that we could compare to our own. ( A list of organizations and universities contacted is contained in Appendix Three.) The two most notable findings were surveys from Stanford and Dartmouth. Although the statistical accuracy of their flier surveys may be called into question, the results are nonetheless relevant as a means of comparison. At Stanford, 31 percent of the sample admitted to cheating on examinations. Seventy percent admitted to cheating when it included plagiarism, “padding” a bibliography, etc. In the Dartmouth survey roughly 55 percent of the sample admitted to cheating, and approximately 34 percent said they had cheated more than once. These percentages include, however, acts of plagiarism, which our survey did not address. (A description of the Stanford and Dartmouth surveys is contained in Appendix Two, Part II.)

            There are substantial differences between Princeton’s statistics and those obtained at Stanford and Dartmouth. Part of this gap may be attributed to differences in polling technique and accuracy. Nonetheless, the incidence of cheating at Princeton appears to be less than at comparable schools where data were available. Although our results were lower than those at Stanford and Dartmouth, the Honor Committee believes that the incidence of cheating at Princeton can and must be lowered. Any indication of violations of the Honor Code is a cause for concern. The recommendations outlined below are offered in an attempt to make Princeton’s Honor System more effective and workable.

            The following are the six major recommendations of the Honor Committee:

            1) the establishment of a Faculty Advisory Committee and the re-institution of rigorous record-keeping practices;

            2) an expansion of the Committee from seven to nine members and a redistribution of the workload and functions within the Committee structure;

            3) the expansion of the Honor Code’s jurisdiction to include breaches of personal honor related to in-class examinations which are not presently enumerated in the Honor Code Constitution. We also propose the re-wording of the honor pledge to include the obligation to report violations;

            4) a graduated and more flexible penalty structure, consistent with Discipline Committee practice, to be implemented by a “conference system”;

            5) a clarification and tightening of examination procedure; and

            6) an expanded orientation program to increase student and faculty awareness of the Code.

            More thorough discussions of the six proposals are contained in Appendix One, but the following is a brief summary of the rationale behind the Committee’s recommendations:

            1) Continuity. The transient nature of the Honor Committee’s membership and the failure of past Committees to keep adequate records have made it extremely difficult for the Committee to recover past procedures and precedents. We believe it essential that the Committee recapture a sense of continuity.

            The continuation of the present Faculty Advisory Committee, whose membership would be more stable (four or five year terms) than our own, would help preserve the Honor Committee’s corporate memory. The Faculty Advisory Committee would not be involved in Committee procedure or in the adjudication of individual cases. Rather, as the title suggests, their role would be to advise the Honor Committee on past practice and on relations with the faculty.

            The reinstitution of record-keeping practices is perhaps the most simple yet crucial recommendation. The maintenance of a Casebook and thorough files in absolutely essential to the Committee’s proper functioning. Without such written records, the Committee cannot benefit from precedent.

            2) Membership of the Committee. At present, the Honor Committee is composed of three past class presidents and the four current class presidents. We believe that there is too little diversity in the Committee membership and too little experience (each year there are four new members). We propose to drop the senior class president from the Committee and add three additional appointed members, expanding the Committee size from seven to nine. With this appointment process, the Committee could achieve a more broadly based representation of students, including women, minorities, and B.S.E. or “science” majors. The appointment process could also provide for more experience, since appointed members might well be reappointed.

            In addition, the expanded Committee size would allow us to rotate assignments that traditionally have fallen to the same one or two Committee members. For example, different Committee members would serve on a rotating basis in the investigative role and in the role of defense advocate in individual cases. With the exception of the Chairman, all would become involved in these various functions.

            We recommend that the former sophomore class president serve as Chairman during his or her senior year, not the junior class president as at present. The Clerk of the Committee, we propose, should be the former sophomore class president in his or her junior year. the recording of individual cases in the Casebook will be assigned on a rotating basis. 

            Concurrent with the expansion of the Committee, we also recommend that the votes required for a guilty verdict be changed to six of seven, five of six, and four of five. (In each case, the two members who conducted the investigation would not vote. Thus, a hearing of the full Committee would involve seven of the nine members in the actual voting.) The Constitution now requires six of seven, six of six, or five of five guilty votes for a conviction.

            3) Honor Code Jurisdiction and the Pledge

When the Honor Code was first established in 1893, it was a common assumption that the Honor Code applied to any acts of dishonesty related to in-class examinations, not just to acts of cheating. It was understood, for example, that failure to report a violation, lying to the Honor Committee, leaving the examination room without permissions, etc., were all Honor Code violations to be prosecuted with the same vigor as cheating. These understandings, however, were never fully embodied in the Honor Code Constitution.

            At some point in the Honor Code’s recent history, most of the assumptions of past years were lost. The Honor Committee recommends that the jurisdiction of the Honor Code be formally expanded to include these more general aspects of academic honor. The Constitutional amendment to Article V that we propose reads as follows: “Violations shall also consist of any form of academic fraud on an in-class examination, or any attempt to gain unfair advantage in completing an examination.” An additional amendment would read: “Violations shall also consist of lying before the Committee or failure to report any Honor violation enumerated above.”

            Concurrent with these amendments would be a change in the Honor Pledge to read: “I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code during this examination, and will report any observed violation.” This, we believe, would increase students’ awareness of their responsibility to report violations.

            4) Graduated Penalty Structure

The Honor Committee feels very strongly that 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 common practice on the Discipline Committee and in virtually all judicial systems in Western society. In short, we think that the penalty should always be appropriate to the offense. Given the proposed expanded jurisdiction of the Code, with a new set of non-cheating Honor violations, the institution of a graduate penalty structure becomes imperative.

            The Honor Committee is considering various sanctions to be included in the new penalty structure. Among these are probation and the “X-grade” (to indicate on the transcript that cheating had occurred). We welcome any other suggestions.

            In order to prevent the Honor Committee from slipping into the practice of issuing lesser penalties for violations that warrant separation from the University, we propose a “conference system” whereby the Discipline Committee and Honor Committee would have to agree on any penalty other than suspension or expulsion. The Honor Committee would give its recommendation to the Discipline Committee for consideration. If approved, the penalty would stand. If the two committees could not agree, they would confer until an acceptable agreement was reached. We propose that the President of the University would decide the penalty if the committees were unable to agree.

            5) Limitations on Honor System Freedoms

We recommend for students’ protection the following points:

            A) Do not sit near students with whom you have studied.

            B) Do not bring books and notes into the examination room unless the examination is an “open-book” examination. 

            C) Sit at least one seat apart from other students.

            D) Keep conversation at a minimum.

            The above are suggestions designed for the protection of students. They are not binding prohibitions.

            In the past, students were not allowed to take their examinations outside the designated rooms without the professor’s permission. This important requirement has been neglected in recent years; the Honor Committee would like to clarify this point and revive forgotten procedure. Students may not take an examination in any room other than the one designated. The professor may allow students to take the exam elsewhere, but only with specific permission. Such permission must be granted uniformly; that is if one student is allowed to leave the room, no other student may be denied permission upon request. Students retain the right to leave the examination room to take a short break. 

            We must also emphasize here the importance of the faculty’s role in enforcement of examination procedure. We hope that the members of the faculty will be more attentive to these responsibilities (encouraging alternate seating, specifying designated examination areas, etc.) in the future.

6) Orientation

The Honor Committee proposes an expanded orientation program to increase student and faculty awareness of and adherence to the Honor Code. Included in this recommendation is the printing of a separate Honor Code Booklet which would spell out all matters of procedure and responsibility. In addition, we would like to conduct meetings with small groups to discuss periodically the Honor System and the issues that confront the Honor Committee.

            (More thorough discussions of the above recommendations are contained in Appendix One.) 

            In its research the Honor Committee learned that most universities with honor systems delegate all matters of academic fraud to a single committee. At present, the Student-Faculty Committee on Discipline adjudicates all cases of academic fraud not involving in-class examinations. For reasons of internal consistency and equity, we are extremely attracted to an all-inclusive system. The Honor Committee believes that an honor system which includes all acts of academic dishonesty (e.g., plagiarism, falsified data, collusion on problem sets, as well as in-class cheating), is an ideal structure toward which we might wish to strive in the future. At the present time, however, we are not prepared to propose such an expansion of the Honor Committee’s responsibilities. We feel it most important to improve the present system as much as possible before taking on additional duties. We hope, though, that in future years the University community will formally consider the possibility of the all-inclusive system. 

Conclusion:

            It has been our belief since this report was first conceived that the Honor System is essential to the spirit of academic freedom and integrity that is so much a part of Princeton. The Committee did discuss the possibility of abandoning the Honor System. However, we believe that the benefits of an Honor System far outweigh the shortcomings we have identified. Further, we are persuaded that no other system would work better. The above analysis is not intended to question the Honor System’s purpose, but rather to suggest specific means by which it may be improved. We hope that this report is received in that spirit. 

            The Honor System represents the values and the ideals of the entire University community, and any change in the structure of that system must be contingent upon the participation of every group in the University. Our role until this point has been to gather the information necessary to help the community reach an intelligent and practical solution to the problems we have identified. Over a year has passed since the survey was conducted, and the Committee has spent hundreds of hours researching and writing this report to the community. The next step is for the community to consider what we present, and, after extensive debate, to reach some conclusion. Information sessions, open forums, and informal discussions will be planned and advertised so that this constructive interaction can take place. The publication of this report marks the beginning of what we hope will be an extremely productive period of evaluation and reform of the Honor Code at Princeton University. Such reforms have taken place regularly since the Code’s inception, the first major one in 1921, and the most recent in 1973. This reform process is necessary and appropriate. The principles that underlie an Honor Code are sacrosanct; the policies used to protect and implement them are not.

The Honor Committee 

Robert M. Thomas, Jr. ’80, Chairman

W. Warren Hamel ’80

David H. Battaglia ’80

James Bailinson ’81

Barbara Barrow ’81

Marshall Merrifield ’82

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