One-Question Interview: Duke's New Honor Code

Sunny Kishore is chair of the Duke University Honor Council

Q: What should students and faculty members expect from each other concerning the new honor code known as the Community Standard?

A. There has been considerable discussion regarding the implementation of Duke's New Honor Code -- the Community Standard -- to be unveiled this fall. What has not been made clear during these discussions is what exactly the Community Standard is and how it differs from the present Honor Code. The present honor code only covers matters of academic integrity -- that is, only matters within the classroom such as plagiarism. Regulations concerning instances of social dishonesty, such as stealing are currently found in rules known as the Fundamental Standard. The purpose of the Community Standard is to give Duke one cohesive code that governs both social and academic dishonesty. The Community Standard includes three basic clauses which differentiate it from the previous Honor Code: (1) Non-Toleration Clause, (2) One-Time Faculty-Student Arbitration and (3) Revision of Judicial Sanctions.

Non-Toleration Clause and Responsibility of Student

The Non-Toleration Clause, which is the most salient of the clauses, states "I will not lie, cheat, or steal in my academic endeavors, nor will I accept the actions of those who do." This clause makes it clear that those students who observe others violating the Community Standard must not accept the action. In practice, this means the observing student must either approach the student in question and encourage them to turn themselves in or, if that fails, report the student to a higher authority. In the past, one was allowed to give an obscure explanation of the event (something to the tune of "Professor X, some one in this class has cheated"), without ever mentioning his/her own name in order to preserve anonymity.

This is no longer the case. When students report, they will be expected to give a signed statement with the name of the accused (if known) and their own name within one week of the event to the Dean of Students Office (DOS). This change is meant to decrease the non-specificity of a general accusation of "some" person in the course, thereby making the accusation more directed. This has the benefit of making the student aware of the accuser, a necessary component of a fair judicial process.

One-Time Faculty-Student Resolution

Reserved for first-time offenses, the faculty-student resolution item is meant for students who have had no prior violations and whose current violation (if proven) would result in a sanction less than probation. The process is relatively simple: Once a professor has knowledge of an instance of dishonesty, the professor must contact the DOS to ensure the student is an appropriate candidate for faculty-student resolution. The professor may present his case and the student may elect to respond to the allegations put forth; a resolution is put forth by the professor (e.g. reduced grade) to which the student must respond within 48 hours. If the student accepts the resolution, he must sign the resolution form and file it with DOS; if the student does not accept the resolution, his case is automatically referred to the DOS. This item is useful for resolving minor cases "in-house" and should be upheld fairly consistently given the clear boundaries of violations.

Revision of Sanctions

Presently, sanctions for students who cheat and/or commit acts of plagiarism often result in a blanket two-semester suspension. The new set of sanctions, as proposed in the Community Standard, reflects the severity of the action. For instance, if a student were to plagiarize, the punishment would be probation for "careless, and minimal, plagiarism"; one '" semester suspension for "careless, but substantial plagiarism"; two '" semesters suspension for "intentional plagiarism (intent determined by amount); greater than two-semester suspension (or expulsion) for "intentional and egregious plagiarism (multiple assignments)".

Students' Perspective on Faculty's Responsibility

Several students (including members of the Honor Council) believe that the weighty responsibility accorded to them by the Community Standard must be met with an equivalent responsibility by faculty members. That is, faculty members should make concerted efforts to acknowledge the trust being established inside and outside of their classrooms. The Honor Council, in particular, formally requests that faculty seriously consider instituting un-proctored exams when they observe that students are behaving honorably and responsibly, especially in smaller classes (Note: The requirement for faculty members to hold Proctored exams was eliminated from the Faculty Handbook last year). We also believe, with the support of the Duke Student Government, that a revision of the current Dean's Excuse protocol is in order. The symbolic benefit of increased trust between faculty and student is significant; as is the practical benefit for students in participating in a process where student and faculty member can directly negotiate the bounds of an acceptable and unacceptable excuse. The Academic Integrity Council (AIC) is currently investigating alternatives to the current excuse protocol.

One mission of the Honor Council in the coming years is to convince all faculty members to include a written discussion of the Community Standard on their syllabi and an oral discussion (as little as 5 minutes) at the beginning of the semester. Indeed, among my classmates, only a handful mention that their professors ever mention the Honor Code. There is also frequent confusion regarding the faculty's position on collaboration. For instance, many courses include laboratories that encourage collaboration but assign homework where collaboration is prohibited; however, this distinction is not brought to many students' attention until it is too late. Clearly and firmly stating policies on collaboration at the beginning of the semester would make them more likely to be followed.

Central to the efficacy of the policy is the realization that faculty and students must be equally committed to preserving principles of integrity. Given that the process rests upon compromise, students are prepared to work with faculty so long as both parties maintain shared responsibility toward building a community founded upon trust, rather than suspicion. It is my belief that if seedling faculty-student relationships are nurtured with the fertilizer of trust over the coming years, the climate of integrity at Duke will be transformed for the better.

Now, many students believe that the responsibility accorded to them by the Community Standard must be met with an equivalent responsibility by faculty members. That is, faculty members should make concerted efforts to acknowledge the trust being established inside and outside of their classrooms. The Honor Council, in particular, formally requests that faculty seriously consider instituting un-proctored exams when they observe that students are behaving honorably and responsibly, especially in smaller classes. Remember, the requirement for faculty members to hold proctored exams was eliminated from the Faculty Handbook last year). We also believe, with the support of the Duke Student Government, that a revision of the current Dean's Excuse protocol is in order. The symbolic benefit of increased trust between faculty and student is significant; as is the practical benefit for students in participating in a process where student and faculty member can directly negotiate the bounds of an acceptable and unacceptable excuse. The Academic Integrity Council (AIC) is currently investigating alternatives to the current excuse protocol.