Violations of Dartmouth's Academic Honor Principle have been on the rise over the last three years, despite the fact that students tend to take the Honor Code seriously, said Marcia Kelly, Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Officer.
Last year 20 students underwent COS hearings for violations of the Honor Code, and 17 were found guilty. Kelly estimates that the year before that, approximately two students violated the Code.
She attributed last year's rise in violations to the "personal stress and personal circumstances" of the guilty students.
Despite this seeming upward incline, Kelly said the numbers of Honor Code violations over the years are "inconsistent and unpredictable. Year by year, it goes up and down."
For example, Kelly estimates in 1996-1997 there were approximately 12 violations of the Honor Code, while in 1997-1998 there were only two.
Statistics indicate that the possibility of a light punishment is not the explanation for the recent upwards drift of infractions in the past three years. Among the 17 students found guilty last year, the average punishment was suspension for one to six terms.
"The Committee has repeatedly voted to support the notion that average violations of the Honor Code -- unpermitted collaboration ... taking things off websites and downloading answers -- [are punishable] by one year of suspension," Kelly said.
Kelly said if the Committee on Standards receives many new cases as a result of the recent Computer Science 4 cheating scandal, the rising trend in violations will be "dramatic."
An estimated 40 students have been implicated in this year's CS 4 cheating scandal.
When asked her opinion of the cheating scandal, Kelly said, "I hope that it's an aberration [from the norm]."
"The Honor Code at Dartmouth is something to take seriously," Jorge Miranda '01, a member of the COS, said.
However, Kelly called permanent separation from the College for violating the Honor Code "pretty unusual," and said such an occurrence had happened only with "egregious cases."
The Student Handbook calls the Academic Honor Principle "fundamental to the education process," while citing "honesty and integrity" as essential components of the "independent learning process."
Giving or receiving answers during an exam, using another's work without properly citing the source, and use of the same work for more than one class are noted as the three major categories in violations of the Honor Code.
When asked to comment on the potential punishment for a teaching assistant who may have contributed to a student cheating, Kelly said "I don't necessarily think that the TA is violating the Honor Principle -- they may be violating the terms of their job, however."
Professors who suspect students in their classes are violating any of these rules are encouraged, according to the Student Handbook, to "discuss the suspected violation with the student(s)."
The next step for a professor is to consult with a colleague to "test the validity of his/her suspicion."
Finally, the professor "should immediately bring the matter to the attention of the COS," which will then set in motion the procedure to bring the accused student before the committee.
The COS is comprised of a combination of faculty and students. During an Academic Honor Principle case, the hearing panel is comprised of "three faculty members, three students, two members selected by the President and a non-voting chair."
Punishments for Academic Honor Code violations are equal to those dealt out for violations of any other Dartmouth Community Standard and can be as severe as separation from the College.
Student opinion of the Honor Code is high, in spite of the disregard for it that the recent scandal in CS4 seems to portray.
"It's something we're expected as students to uphold and anyone who breaks it -- it's just not right -- it's not morally right," Timothy Yang '03 said.
Karen Tani '02 agreed with Yang, and pointed to the use of a similar policy at her high school as an example of how well the Honor Code works.
"It fostered an environment where you respected the people around you, and respected the teachers -- that element of trust is very important."
Kelly concurred, and said, "It's my experience that Dartmouth students really value the Principle and some students choose to come to Dartmouth because of it. It seems very important to students."
When asked about opinions that the Honor Code is too scrupulous, Kelly said, "I think it accomplishes what it's supposed to accomplish." She added "People misunderstand it [sometimes]."
Miranda pointed to group projects as "fuzzy areas" when determining guilt, and said there was no rigid set of laws adhered to by the COS when judging the cases.
"It's all done on a case by case basis," said Miranda, referring to the COS's proceedings.
"There's a difference between letting someone look at your paper and not know that they're going to cheat on it, and letting someone look at your test -- [in the latter case] you're obviously facilitating that person cheating."
Miranda said that the COS "is made up of reasonable people ... just because you're brought before the COS doesn't mean that you're automatically getting kicked out of Dartmouth."
He went on to say however, that if an accused student has made what he or she calls a "mistake" by quoting an entire section of someone else's words and failing to cite the source, that student should be punished for the offense, despite the fact that it may have been an oversight on the student's part.
"I think most people would agree that you need to have a strict honor code to prevent someone from doing that with intention."
Miranda emphasized his opinion of the Academic Honor Principle, saying that "the Honor Code at Dartmouth is a great thing."
