Two strikes for Ethics Board - Editorial

The Ethics Board recently tackled two important issues: how to better prevent students from gaining an unfair advantage over their peers on exams and what to do with those who try to get around these protections. While we appreciate the effort to address concerns that affect many students at the University, we cannot help but be disturbed by positions taken by some board members and administrators present at the most recent meeting.

The board first discussed a proposal to make copies of all exams available to students as part of the Milton S. Eisenhower Library's electronic reserve. This proposal correctly identifies a current problem on campus: Some students possess copies of old exams, allowing them to better prepare for upcoming tests - especially those that faculty members recycle each year. Undoubtedly, the creation of an archive of old tests would eliminate the use of "files" as a cheating tool, since everyone in the class would have access to the same materials.

However, Dean of the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Daniel Weiss argued that requiring professors to submit copies of exams for use in a University-wide file would be a difficult policy to enforce, and the Ethics Board stopped short of approving the proposal. Instead, members plan to bring the issue before department heads and later discuss a modified version of the proposal - one that includes only a request for professors to turn in previous exams rather than a requirement.

The idea that the deans can't - or won't - require professors to submit old exams is unacceptable; simply asking is not going to get the job done. Most likely, the only professors who would heed an appeal by the deans are ones who don't recycle tests anyway - we doubt that those who are currently too lazy or stubborn to create new tests would change their ways, no matter how nicely the deans ask. Without an explicit requirement to submit tests, the deans can expect exams with the biggest potential for abuse to be conspicuously absent from the planned reserve, significantly limiting its ability to curb cheating.

If the Ethics Board is unwilling to pass a resolution requiring professors to include old tests in a University-wide archive, they must be prepared to continue dealing with the current level of cheating accusations - hence, the second possible change discussed last Thursday. Former Ethics Board President Benjy Silverman introduced a proposal that would require expulsion of any student convicted of a second ethics violation. Unfortunately, this proposal seems little more than an attempt to intimidate students with stiffer penalties in place of enacting a more effective cheating deterrent.

When considering the merits of a "two strikes law" that mandates expulsion, the Ethics Board must first determine whether or not this would be an appropriate punishment for a second cheating violation. By discussing current precedent, the proposal itself calls this into question - at this time, the most common punishment for a second offense is a failing grade in the course with either a suspension from the University or a mark on the student's transcript explaining that they were convicted of an ethics violation. If the results of past Ethics Board cases overwhelmingly suggest that board members felt expulsion was unnecessary, why should they vote now to make this penalty not only standard, but required?

Regardless of whether or not expulsion is an appropriate punishment for repeat offenders, we cringe at the thought of ethics policies that do not allow for consideration of the unique circumstances associated with each case. Clearly, not all ethics violations are the same - a student convicted of stealing the answer key to an upcoming test should not be treated the same as one who (possibly unintentionally) fails to attribute a single quotation in a 50-page dissertation. And the question of an appropriate punishment becomes even more ambiguous in cases in which the professor was unclear about what constitutes an ethics violation. While we hope that fewer situations of this nature have arisen since the creation of a syllabus insert by Academic Advising over the summer, we highly doubt the problem has been eliminated.

Based on the fact that the severity of ethical violations varies - as do the definitions of what constitutes cheating - we have yet to hear anything even close to a reasonable explanation as to why a policy mandating uniform harsh punishments should be considered. Ethics Board member R.J. Hagerman attempted to defend the merits of the policy, saying, "The real world is harsh, and if you don't prepare for it, the world will be hard on you."

While Hagerman's comment surely contains some deep insight into the workings of society, we wonder how expelling a student under questionable circumstances serves as protection from the cruel world that awaits after college. If the Ethics Board hopes to prepare students, it should instead do its part to ensure that a degree from Hopkins reflects hard work and intellectual maturity, not the ability to unearth study materials that other students can't access. The answer is not an uncompromising stance that imposes extremely harsh penalties; a better start would be the establishment of a University-wide file of old exams that has the mandate of the deans.