Deans Bader, Weiss must broaden concept of honor code committee

Recently, Deans Bader and Weiss formed the "Honor Code Committee." An e-mail sent on Feb. 8, 2002 described this committee as "map[ing] out our approach to evaluating an honor code at Hopkins." While I applaud the deans' effort, it seems they are missing the overall purpose of an honor code. McCabe and Trevino (1996) found that, "The climate or culture of academic integrity found on a campus may be the most important determinant of the level of student cheating on that campus." Thus, honor codes are effective because they create a discussion where the topic of academic ethics is not taboo, but socially acceptable.

In fact, according to Melendez (1985), the current ethics board constitution at Hopkins already meets the criteria for an honor code, yet I am reluctant to believe that people think it is effective. Furthermore, I suggest that simply altering the text of our honor code will not make it any more effective. Why isn't our current system working? We have the right text and the proper procedures, except they are not used. It will take a shift in our culture to allow academic ethics to become important, and I suggest that Deans Bader and Weiss need to examine this shift in culture to improve ethics at Hopkins.

There is an important reason we need to address the Hopkins culture. Students cheat because, "They have come to college to get a credential ? a credential that will allow them to pursue a chosen career. How they get that credential is often less important than simply getting it" (McCabe and Trevino, 1996). In one study, a student mentioned, "If [my college] wasn't so damn overbearing, stressful and competitive, I wouldn't need to cheat" (McCabe and Trevino, 1999). Sound familiar? Academic ethics does not operate in a vacuum. In order to create a successful system of ethics, we need to change the culture of Hopkins. We need to create a school where the students are here to further their academic pursuits, to broaden their horizons and to have fun. This discussion cannot occur inside the "Honor Code Committee" alone, but needs to occur in a contextual discussion that addresses quality of life, quality of teaching, trust and interaction between students and faculty and ethics. We must work from the outside in, and not the inside out. By calling the committee the "Honor Code Committee," limits are subconsciously placed on the members forcing them to relate their finding back to an honor code, as opposed to a better system of ethics.

If, through this discussion, we decide to establish a new honor code (note: these studies also conclude that while an honor code may be successful, it is not the only viable method), then we need to implement all of it. One reason why honor codes are effective is because students uphold and respect the privileges associated with them, like unproctored exams, self-scheduled exams and a student run judiciary. Furthermore, honor codes are successful when the policies of the university are uniform. Thus, regardless of which professor you have or whether you are in the School of Arts and Sciences or Engineering, the ethical policy will be the same. Will the faculty members at Hopkins participate in this trade-off? Will a decentralized faculty forfeit their power over ethical situations to a central power and furthermore follow all its policies? I would bet not, considering the variable behavior testing practices that I have experienced. For example, I have had some classes where my J-Card is checked before turning in a test, I am assigned a seat and my exam is copied after I take it just in case I change my answers. With a revised honor code, all this must change.

Even if the faculty decide to adopt an honor code, they must follow it rigorously. In McCabe's 1993 study of professors at honor code institutions, he found that "faculty who observe students cheating are generally reluctant to get involved in the designated campus judicial process" and find it more beneficial to settle instances of cheating on an individual basis. By doing this, the faculty "are violating both the spirit and the letter of the school's honor code ? Thus the faculty members ? may be violating students' rights." Professors at Hopkins currently do not observe our current judiciary process, and to this we must ask what example is this setting for the students? What will a new honor code do to suddenly change the faculty's perception of cheating?

Furthermore, the faculty must be assured that they will receive support from the administration to follow through with ethical policies.

This process will take time. It cannot occur within an isolated group, but instead needs to be a very public initiative and involve a diverse representation of students, faculty and administrators. Furthermore, the students must adopt the actual code. If the administration forces this issue there will be too much resistance. The drafting of any honor code must be done by students, with any faculty or administrator, including Deans Bader and Weiss, playing strictly a supportive role. Furthermore, the deans can introduce this discussion to the faculty, but students should chair an honor code committee.

Deans Bader and Weiss seem to be polarizing the campus community by singling out student cheating. While it is true that students cheat, the faculty and administration also contribute to our ethical problems. A student honor code is not a quick fix, and the deans seem to think they can make a block of Swiss cheese solid by plugging up one hole. A community honor code is a process, it will take time and it will be a healthy discussion for our campus. In order for Hopkins to address ethics, we must have a very inclusive and public conversation, which will ultimately result in the best policy for this university. Deans Bader and Weiss, do not limit the scope of the discussions. If you do, the policy that results will be doomed to fail.

References: McCabe, D.L. (1993). Faculty Responses to Academic Dishonesty: The Influence of Student Honor Codes. Research in Higher Education 34(5): 647-658; McCabe, D.L. & Trevino, L.K. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education 70(2): 211-234; McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1996). What We Know About Cheating In College. Change 28: 28-35; Melendez, B. (1985). Honor Code Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.