USD Magazine, Winter 2000

JUSTICE FORALL? Nor everyone believes that an honor code would bring about radical reductions in academic dishonesty. Although USO's cur– rent reporting process has been made less cumbersome to encourage faculty to use the system, resistance to getting enmeshed in the bureaucratic tangle of cheating cases remains. Some believe handling the problem within the classroom is best, while others don't think the outcomes are worth the effort of pursuing problem students. As discussion of honor codes bubbles in the campus community, questions have arisen about what kind of system would be right for USO. In the campus values

Now that the educational endeavors are under way, students in the next few years may propose changes to the university's hearing committee system, including more student involvement in the process, and develop a plan to implement an honor system. For now, it seems to be eno ugh that the discussion has begun. "We can't be too preoccupied with the judicial system or enforcement when we don't yet know what will come out of the process the students have set into motion," says Orinan. "Creating a culture of integrity is the first step. If we keep people talking about academic integrity, the rest will follow."

DECIPHERING HONOR CODES The Center for Academic Integrity, aconsortium of more than 200 colleges and universities based at Duke University, defines academic integrity as "acommitment, even in the face of adversity, to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility." In committing to these values, many colleges and universities have instituted honor codes or honor systems to translate these ideals into practice. The first two elements are essential to an honor code school , the last two are desirable. Honor systems often omit the requirement that students report each other for violations. The standard elements are: Student Judiciary. Students hold all or amajority of the seats on the honor court, and evaluate the conduct of their peers, hearing cases and handing out punishments. Academic Integrity Pledge. Students are required to com– plete apledge at the beginning of each semester, course, or exam that they have not given or received any unauthorized assistance in their work. Unproctored Exams. Symbolic of the trust that exists at honor code schools, students are free to complete their exams without monitoring. Some schools allow students to take their exams to the library or their residence halls and drop them off at a designated time. Reporting Violations. The strictest honor codes obligate students to report any violations of academic integrity they witness, and astudent's failure to report such incidents is considered by some schools to be equivalent to cheating .

survey, more than 66 percent of the students responding said they felt students should not be responsible for monitoring che academic integrity of ochers. "In other words, the culture at USO doesn't presencly support a system in which students would be required to report each ocher for cheating," says could be instituted here." A modified honor system could be developed chat would not require students to report each other. Eicher way, some faculty warn of potential pitfalls in bringing an honor code to the undergraduate level. Ar USO's School Hendershocc. "Thar's something to work on before an honor code

HO While students seek to educate their peers about honor codes and academic integrity, faculty are doing the same. In the School of Business Administration, a newly formed academic integrity committee's first task will be to survey students and faculty to gather info rmation and collect suggestions about how to deal with the problem of cheating. "Our mission at the School of Business Administration is to develop socially respon– sible leaders and reach values, so we already have the right climate to foster greater aca– demic integrity," says Professor Marc Lampe, who reaches business ethics and heads the committee. "We hope this process will greacly enhance the reputation of the school and the university as a whole."

of Law, which has a code adjudicated by an honor court of students and faculty, faculty members point out flaws in the process chat they say make ic less than fair. T hey say consistency is lost from year co year when different students and faculty serve, and the honor court does not use a random student jury, which would reflect the "real-world" justice system. "What constitutes cheating and plagiarism is often arbitrary, and faculty and students who serve on honor courts typically see their mission in terms of protecting the inscicu– cion," says law professor Steven Hartwell, who ftequencly defends students accused of violating the law school's honor code. "Also, honor codes are often essentially

continued on page 20

19

WI N TER 2000