Just starting a conversation out of interest in hearing other viewpoints.
A lot of colleges have honor codes. Some, like Haverford, give them a central role.
There are (roughly) two ways of viewing them.
They are empowering, as students are trusted to do the right thing and to police themselves. Holding one another accountable makes the world fair for all.
It is pretentious and self-righteous to emphasize an honor code. People should be honest because it is intrinsically satisfying to accomplish real success after hard work, versus getting hollow accolades for work you did not do… not out of fear that they will be “caught” either by a college official or a peer. When an honor code is given central importance, over-zealous students may look for cheating and glory in reporting alleged infractions… and seriously, is it anyone’s business if another person cheats? It is their problem, not yours. And what’s with patting yourself on the back for not cheating? Shouldn’t the assumption be that you do not cheat? A simple expectation, not something praiseworthy!
I tend to favor the latter viewpoint. In elementary schools, we teach little kids about tattling vs. telling… to tell an authority when someone is in physical danger or being emotionally bullied or in other situations where the consequences can be serious. We call it tattling and tell them not to tattle if they say, “You said use a pen and Johnny’s writing in pencil,” or “Johnny’s talking at a silent time!” To me, reporting an assault or bullying in college would be important “telling.” But reporting cheating? Tattling.
But I can see the other side. Recently I heard about a few boys who had a group discussion and decided not to report to the teacher that they had seen a girl cheating on a midterm. They decided it would be nosy and self-righteous. Then that girl was the sole recipient of an award in that subject at the end of the year. The boys were kind of solemn and sad about it, and wished the award had gone to someone whom they would have seen as a more worthy recipient.
I still don’t think that people in that situation should tell an adult or a peer council or court. But maybe if they speak to the cheater privately about it, the cheater might think about it and be less inclined to cheat in the future? (Would that be “cool” in an honor code setting, or do students sign something that says they are required to report cheating if the cheater does not self-report? …I don’t think the cheater should self-report either, just change her behavior in the future.)
That event prompted me to at least question my stance, and to open this discussion, just for fun. Thoughts?
“I still don’t think that people in that situation should tell an adult or a peer council or court. But maybe if they speak to the cheater privately about it, the cheater might think about it and be less inclined to cheat in the future?”
When I was in college, the action you have described (termed “confrontation”) was an expected part of the process. The observer was expected to discuss the act with the actor and let the actor know what had been observed.
The next step expected in the process was that the act would be reported to the honor board. Not reporting a violation as grievous as cheating is in fact a violation in and of itself. And yes, cheaters need to turn themselves in if they are to live fully within an honors system.
As to signing honor codes: Some institutions require that. Others state that by accepting admissions, the student is formally agreeing to live under an honor code.
Neither. The purpose of honor codes (to me anyway) is to send a crystal clear message…we’re here to learn, not deal with your crappy childish behavior problems. Behave like a responsible adult or get lost.
Particularly in top tier colleges, there are too many decent kids who would love to play by the rules waiting in the wings for a chance to be admitted and learn.
Some colleges placate this crap and treat adults like naughty children with little tut tut time outs. Other colleges have more respect for themselves…and view their school as an opportunity so good it should not be wasted on someone who obviously doesn’t appreciate it.
Cheaters? Get rid of them. Not only are they dishonest slimeballs who will graduate dangerously uneducated (making the university look really bad)…they also throw the curve for students who…you know…actually work for their grades.
Report them. Every time. And don’t feel a bit bad about it. You’re doing them a favor. About time karma kicked them in the pants.
In practice, I don’t think schools with strong honor codes act like places where “over-zealous students may look for cheating and glory in reporting alleged infractions”. A lot of infractions are either reported by faculty or self-reported as opposed to “tattling” by fellow students.
If teaching this to kids at a younger age worked so well and was actually effective, why is cheating so rampant still?
I agree with @happymomof1 that the practice of “confrontation” is an active part of the process as opposed to “tattling” which is probably why there is self-reporting.
I think honest students with integrity are drawn in greater numbers to colleges with stronger honor codes. They are self-selecting to some extent. And due to the atmosphere, I do think it allows for a greater sense of trust between the student body and faculty and a lot of good comes from that atmosphere.
If you don’t intend to be honest, you don’t “get it” or the model doesn’t work for you, a place like Haverford probably isn’t a good fit. There are plenty of other institutions of higher education one can attend. No need to disparage it. It’s not right for everyone but works very well for those who embrace the concept.
At Haverford, the Honor Code is deeply connected to the notion of community and mutual accountability. It is not about “tattling” to a third party, it is about responding directly to the person who may be engaging in actions which can harm the integrity of the community. It works.
From what I understand, that is very different, culturally, from the “one strike you are out” kind of Honor Code which used to be found at Washington & Lee and other schools (I don’t know if that is still the case). There, the punishment was immediate and absolute.
My kids are scrupulously honest so the honor code idea appealed to them. They didn’t want to have to deal again with the same cheaters who got ahead in high school with no repercussions. However, they were scared off by many tales of over-zealous and biased honor councils who ruined kids’ careers despite questionable evidence of wrong-doing. It seems these councils can often end up like kangaroo courts.
I agree with viewpoint 1, even if it is very idealistic. We visited Haverford. We didn’t care for it, but not just because of the honor code. In fact, my daughter actually said she didn’t know if she could trust herself to be that honest, so she knew it wouldn’t work for her. Her problem with the school was that she felt it was impossible for a big group of people to be that honest all the time. It bothered her. However, that doesn’t mean it’s pretentious and self righteous. It’s a utopian ideal, perhaps.
At USMA, the honor code, memorized and repeated often by every cadet, is etched in stone in the center of campus:
“Cadets accused of violating the Honor Code face a standardized investigative and hearing process. First they are tried by a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty, the case will go up to the Commandant of the Academy who will give his recommendation, then to the Superintendent of the Academy, who has the discretion to either impose sanctions or recommend that the Secretary of the Army expel the cadet from the Academy.”
Violating this code is no joke. A cadet can be separated from the academy just for toleration. Unfortunately, there are always a few bad apples, but the officer candidates at USMA internalize this code and measure all decisions by it.
I followed the thinking in the OP’s post, right up to the point where he said that turning in a cheater on a test is tattling, not telling. I so heartily disagree with that. If there is incontrovertible proof that someone cheated on an exam, they should be prepared to face the consequences.
Haverford’s honor code strikes me as a relatively low-effort reminder of their Quaker heritage, for a community that probably doesn’t attract too many petty thieves or cheats to begin with. I doubt their peer colleges have bigger problems with cheating and stealing than Haverford does, with or without an honor code.
Honor codes aren’t about honesty, they are about respect. Respect for everyone else. Cheating isn’t about the cheater, it’s about the disservice done to the community. A community that values the ideas and efforts of everyone, individually, has at its foundation respect.
Haverford is a Quaker school. It still holds onto its founding much more than Swarthmore. The Quakers have been out in front on issues of equality…slavery…women’s rights…for centuries. If you want proof…3 of the 5 women going onto the new $10 bills are Quakers (2 with Swarthmore ties). Swarthmore (part of the same annual meeting as Haverford) required an exception from the PA legislature to allow its formation with women on the board.
If you’re worried about someone reporting on you when you cheat, or that you can’t be trusted to take a test on your own, you belong someplace else. The honor codes are looking for those who will be engaged and active members their communities…not cheaters.
We toured a number of schools that had honors codes (Haverford, Davidson and UVA) and I really don’t think that once you are a student there it really affects your day to day life very much, as every school will have rules in place to prevent cheating and punish cheaters. I told DD though that the ability to self-schedule exams at Davidson was pretty cool as you could space out exams as you wanted to, but other than that it was not that big of a deal.
There is nothing “low-effort” about Haverford’s honor code. It is very much an alive and active, constantly changing, integral part of the school. I get the impression that those that critique it, often don’t really understand it and its scope and impact on the school and the school’s community.
Honor Codes are central tenets, like the one at USMA and all other military academies. Students and cadets tempted to take shortcuts have to understand there are real consequences, and no excuses will be accepted if they are caught and found to have been violation of the code. It’s all about character. Most people have the character to not cheat or do unethical things. But there are people on the borderline who might have done it and gotten away with it in the past. This is a warning that the game is different now. In real life, lives can be lost by someone who wants to take shortcuts to save from doing things the right way. Your fellow students expect you to behave in an honorable way.
Haverford (and to a related extent, Bryn Mawr), focus on community – it’s not so much about honesty, that’s pretty much expected. Rather it is about accountability to each other – being able to ask a hallmate to turn down music the night before a big test, or that hallmate not even playing it loudly during midterms because even though they don’t have an exam, it is respectful to the community not to disturb others. Self-scheduled exams are a wonderful consequence, again, it is respect for the students, that they will appropriately manage their own exam schedule. There are not people lurking in corners waiting to “gotcha” when someone neglects to do something under the Honor Code. It is a distinctive feature of Haverford, along with its smaller size than many other LACs. That either resonates or not.
Someone who gets by/gets excellent grades/assessments because of cheating effectively dilutes and cheapens the efforts of those who got theirs by honest effort and talent and by extension everyone else in that community.
If someone cheats, it’s not only speaks poorly of their own dubious character, it is also implicit testimony to the lack of intellect/talent…or the confidence they have it.
Not to mention a gross misprioritization of efforts as IMHO…it often takes far more effort to cheat than it is to buckle down and actually put in an honest effort and/or get help when needed.
My understanding is that UVA and VMI still have a one-strike and you’re out" honor code.
Ironic that this is now stricter than even the practice at Federal Service Academies since the '80s*.
They had more graduated punishments for first-time offenders such as one-year suspensions when an older cousin attended in the '80s.
I wish we could say the same thing for the politicians (of all nations and parties) who make the high level decisions about war and peace that can involve lots of lives that can be lost.
Caltech also has an Honors code. Most exams are take home. One can leave their laptop and money out in a dorm computer room, and return to find said objects still there. Serious offenses are taken up by a committee, which includes faculty and a student (s?) which meets in secret.