I thought that the honor system rested on mutual trust and respect, and that the assumption of guilt was wildly out of the sprit of the honor system. But further study and reflection suggests that Princeton’s Honor Code has nothing to do with honor and everything to do with surveillance and punishment.
The Undergraduate Announcement states that students must “assume full responsibility” for their actions on tests and examinations. In fact, the introduction to the honor system places a burden on students to monitor each other: “They are responsible to see that suspected violations are reported.” The eyes of the professor are replaced by the gaze of hundreds of peers. The tone and rules in Princeton’s Honor Code assume that students are guilty until proven innocent and can’t be trusted with even the simplest tasks. In fact, the main duty of Princeton’s Honor Committee is not to enforce honor but to punish students.
The distrust of the Honor Code stems from its history. The Honor Code was written in 1893 as a contract between students and faculty to help prevent cheating. Honor, in those times, meant forcing young white men to follow the rules of older white men. The conservative 19th-century conception of honor has little meaning in an age where students and faculty collaborate. The stringent rules have little to do with honor and more to do with surveillance.
A system of surveillance is not the same thing as an honor system. Princeton effectively has a penal code which has been named an honor code. While “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” could be seen as an honor code of sorts, the pamphlet mostly covers topics like noise, alcohol policies and an entire section on the University ban of the Nude Olympics. A real honor code isn’t simply a list of things you can’t do, but a reflection of evolving community values. To that end, our honor system should actually start with a focus on community and understanding. There are already successful models which Princeton could borrow from.
We should look to institutions like Haverford and Wellesley for models of an honor system that reflects community values. Haverford’s honor code focuses on upholding “concepts of personal and collective responsibility.” Wellesley’s honor code simply asks students to “act with honesty, integrity, and respect.” While similar adages can be found in “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,” a major distinction is that people actually take the honor codes at these schools seriously. At Haverford, students must come to “consensus” on the honor code and have a two-third vote to pass it every year. While it’s hard to imagine 5,000 Princeton students voting on the Honor Code, consistently gaining meaningful student input suggests that students might actually follow the code they helped create.
There are real advantages to these alternative honor systems. An honor code which privileges trust and understanding over suspicion allows students to have self-scheduled exams or complete labs without a proctor. A more trusting and fluid system assumes that students won’t cheat, and ostensibly would allow teachers to post an exam at the beginning of finals week with an understanding that students will only take the time allotted to them.
There is, of course, the possibility of abuse in these alternative honor codes. But the bizarre system of surveillance and distrust Princeton has hasn’t served to stop cheating either. Creating an atmosphere of suspicion inconveniences teachers and students alike with bizarre and antiquated exam procedures. The simple reality is that a small segment of students do, and probably always will, cheat. Preventing cheating isn’t as simple as locking students in a room.
More creative ways to chart growth, improvement and acumen will help reduce the possibility of cheating. And it may well be productive to question the ways in which we currently grade students. Fears of students taking too long on a timed exam may be justified, but we may also be justified in asking why we have timed essays in the first place.
By creating an actual honor code, and not just a penal system, Princeton could help change the way students and faculty interact. Reassessing the honor code may spark further discussions on campus about the ways teachers test knowledge and change the tone of grading from one-sided responsibility to mutual trust.
Michael Collins is an anthropology major from Glastonbury, Conn. He can be reached at mjcollin@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
