Recently, there has been much commotion among the administration and student leadership concerning the honor of students at Hopkins. I use the word "commotion" rather than "action," because the issue seems to reappear on campus every few years (see The News-Letter, 4/8/99; 11/20/97; 3/8/97), then fade and go unresolved for another few.
In its most recent incarnation, the honor code discussion has been fueled by the "Cheaters never prosper" editorial of March 16, wherein a student "confesses" to a slew of academic transgressions over the course of his/her career here. Probably most infuriating to students and faculty are not the purported means of defeating the system, but the utilitarian arguments for cheating - that the system itself propagates the incentive to cheat. It is as if the writer knew exactly which buttons to push.
But the most interesting aspect to me, as a graduate student and former teaching assistant, is the fact that such a letter - fictional or not - carried such weight and was able to evoke such a vigorous reponse. In the weeks since the letter appeared, discussions about the "cheating editorial" have been on the agenda of several committees, and the student president himself felt compelled to launch a counter - campaign to reaffirm academic integrity on campus just last week.
The situation is interesting to me because I rarely find anonymous accusations credible (in an academic environment). And therefore, I draw two conclusions from the vigorous reaction to this letter: namely, that cheating may truly plague the Johns Hopkins undergraduate scene, and that the perception of cheating plagues the Johns Hopkins undergraduate scene.
It is an important distinction, because the first problem cannot be addressed without acknowledging the second. Cheating is not a crime of necessity (as so few crimes in our priviliged society have become now) - rather a social crime, of competition and advancement motivated by perception. And only when the perception of the "cheating society" at Hopkins is eliminated can debates about an honor code begin in earnest.
The problem of implementing an honor code at Hopkins arises from the tremendous psychological baggage that haunts this community. In stories passed between classes about cheaters who got through the system, or in fictional editorials confused for reality, the failure of any honor code is virtually predetermined. This culture of dishonesty has no counter -culture, and that is why it proliferates. While students hear no end of the exploits and successes of the dishonest, there are no counterexamples. No undergraduates tell the story of the exam cheaters in their classes who were expelled, or the plagiarists who were forced to withdraw for a year. In this regard, the lax and half-hearted enforcement of Hopkins' existing academic policies is at fault.
What, then, is the solution to the Hopkins pathological dishonesty -whether merely perceived or genuine? I believe that at this time, an honor code is not the answer. A renewal of "our internal sense of justice, equity and morality" (Asst. Dean John Bader, The News-Letter 3/29/02) is not enough to overcome a perceived environment of exactly the opposite qualities. Undergraduates are simply not ready for such an honor code, and the institution of one would fail miserably. Like democracy, honor is a lofty ideal to desire. But (perhaps surprisingly to many in this country), it is not the right solution for every situation. Most importantly, a system of honor (or democracy) cannot be foisted upon a population unprepared to receive it.
What undergraduates need is to see the alternative - an academic community that enforces academic integrity, and how students prosper in such an environment. Then, when the alternative is apparent, a student-led honor code will be possible, but not before. An honor code without this experience is hopeless - it is a population with good intentions, but no guide.
To create such an environment, the faculty bear the greatest burden - as well as the blame for not doing so sooner. By addressing academic honesty in classes (or not), and making a wholehearted effort to bring the dishonest to academic justice (or not), the atmosphere of integrity is formed (or is not). Only when students pay a price for academic dishonesty and their colleagues are made aware of that price is an institutional respect for honesty created. By ignorning cheating or plagiarism in their classes, the faculty defeat their own aims, and those of the students as well.
Therefore, if an honor code is to be instituted at Johns Hopkins (emphasizing "if"), it will only succeed when several conditions have been achieved:
1) A trial period must be attempted, during which students and faculty discuss and come to a joint understanding of the tenets of academic honesty - the concrete examples and rules by which dishonesty will be known. More importantly, the thorough enforcement of these policies must be embraced by the faculty, without reluctance to hand down significant penalties for dishonesty, including withdrawal and expulsion. Despite the pleadings of students and parents to be lenient, and the desire of deans to escape tearful phone calls, only uniform and just application of these agreed - upon policies will engender trust in an instution. This period might be as short as two years, and if the experiment is to fail, it fails here.
2) The student body and its representatives must embark upon the task of ridding the undergraduate mind of the "cheating culture". This means the effective dissemination of the policies of academic honesty, in addition to real examples (suitably anonymized) of the costs of dishonesty. Such a task could be accomplished within a year of undergraduate life.
3) Only then might the discussion of a student-led honor code be launched. Students will finally have a tangible choice between the possible environments of an academic campus. Then, if self-determination is desired generally by the student body, an honor code may be created and steps toward self-discipline implemented. Or, if students lack the desire to assume this responsibility, then the trial period of task No. 1 could be made a permanent solution. There would be no time limit on this phase.
Creating policies and educating a population are difficult goals - fragile goals which threaten to be defeated by the very same population which they seek to benefit. If students are given the chance to glimpse an undergraduate institution functioning under principles of integrity, implemented with justice, they may decide to open the door further. But without a first glimpse of those possibilities, students may never know the environment that might exist. Nebulous initiatives and self-proclaimed virtue provide no such view of the other side, and are certainly ineffective when handed down from above.
The problem of academic integrity at Hopkins is not one that should be solved by students alone, or faculty alone. Only in a cooperative effort linked to a concrete plan for implementation can any kind of permanent solution be achieved. Without this, the undergraduates of Johns Hopkins University will be writing editorials on cheating for years to come. I hope that they won't need to.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.