Last month, the Honor Code Review Committee (HCRC) sent out an email alerting students of proposed changes to the Honor Code. These proposals are the culmination of three semesters of meetings, surveys, and feedback from students, faculty and administrators. Based on the findings of their report from last May, the committee proposed five recommendations to improve the honor code: regularly and publicly affirming the definition and significance of academic integrity; eliminating the moral obligation for students to report their peers’ infractions; clarifying the way in which student violations are adjudicated, especially with regard to faculty involvement; permitting faculty to proctor exams, should they so desire, in compliance with ADA requirements; and clarifying if and when the use of AI violates the honor code.
Of these proposals, two — the moral obligation to report and the option for professors to proctor exams in all departments — will be voted on by the student body. A third item, not included in the report’s recommendations, will also be brought to a vote; this proposal asks whether to replace suspension as the default punishment for an honor code infraction with a range of punitive actions that may include suspension. To update the honor code, two-thirds of all currently enrolled students must vote in a referendum opening on Nov. 15, and two thirds of those who vote must support the proposed alterations.
By and large, we support all five proposed changes to the Honor Code. However, two-thirds is an ambitious portion of the student body to convince to fill out the survey, and a lack of participation would be detrimental to these items ever passing. We call on students to take a moment to fill out the survey when it comes out tomorrow and vote for all four proposals. This is an essential step in the Honor Code becoming adequately responsive and productive towards student and faculty needs.
Middlebury’s vision of the honor code is a rosy one: Academic integrity as a centerpiece of the student experience, sustained by a social contract that holds students accountable to one another. Unfortunately, this vision does not come close to the current reality. According to Zeitgeist 6.0, 65% of students admit to breaking the honor code, and only 34% of them feel guilty about it. This widespread ambivalence feeds into a self-perpetuating cycle; as more students disregard the honor code without consequence, the norm of academic integrity erodes further. This cycle doesn’t have to continue.
Several peer institutions such as Haverford College place a greater emphasis on integrating their honor system into campus culture. The upcoming vote on the Honor Code is only one way we should seek to include students in a culture of academic integrity. Across our varying first year experiences, some of which were affected by Covid-19, not everyone had an official Honor Code signing ceremony and learned about the pledge in far less ceremonious ways, like from a syllabus in class. If Middlebury College expects its students to follow honorable academic standards, it should give us the opportunity to understand and appreciate their value first. The Honor Code should mean much more to us than a last-minute copy-and-pasted statement at the bottom of our essays; It should remind us of a promise we made and continue to make to ourselves and our classmates to uphold academic honesty for the greater good of our community and institution’s integrity.
The individual responsibility of each student to follow the Honor Code should not be considered equivalent to policing the integrity of each other’s work, as the committee found in its report. Most students aren’t even aware of the “moral obligation” that the code prescribes to report other students for potential violations. Even when they are aware of their responsibility, in our experience students are often reluctant to take action against their peers because doing so goes against the trusting relationship the Honor Code is meant to reinforce. As Middlebury struggles to build a community across classrooms, the last thing we need is another reason to be in competition with one another.
We also agree that it is necessary to clarify how an honor code violation is adjudicated. Currently, the official process by which a student is disciplined is awkward and often entirely ignored. Because the reporting system for Honor Code infractions is ineffective, some professors choose to take matters into their own hands and discipline students within the bounds of their own course, undermining the entire system.
Alongside a procedural update, we suggest that professors remind students of the honor code at the start of each semester, even in upper level classes where students are likely to be familiar with it. Consequences for plagiarism in post-graduate life are far more dire than at Middlebury, and a community that emphasizes academic integrity will prepare students more effectively for the real world. Even for students who skip postgraduate studies and pursue anything from investment banking all-nighters to traveling with the Peace Corps, knowing right from wrong is essential to working in any professional community.
Another proposal of the upcoming vote — permitting faculty to proctor exams at their own discretion — seems like an obvious and easy intervention to prevent cheating. Many students have observed cheating during unproctored exams; the issues were so pervasive that Economics had to request a department-wide exemption to proctor its exams. Having professors sit in the front of a classroom is an effective deterrent to cheating that will keep students honest and level the playing field in testing.
With respect to the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the classroom, we understand that faculty are concerned about the potential for AI to undermine academic integrity and the atmosphere around learning in general. Some departments, however, already use AI — to debug code in computer science courses, for example — and a blanket restriction on AI would hamper some student learning. As such, we agree with the recommendation of the review committee: Since the value of AI varies by discipline, professors should have the final say as to whether AI can be used in their class. We encourage faculty to research AI and how it could assist or impede particular pedagogical objectives, and to provide clear examples in class for when the use of AI in their classes constitutes plagiarism. The technology is here to stay; to shun its use and ignore its existence runs counter to the entire ethos of a liberal arts education.
We support the committee’s intention to reform the Honor Code, fostering a more honest academic environment for future Middlebury students. However, we also noted that the student survey only received 53 student responses last spring, suggesting that students do not always want to take time out of their busy schedules to weigh in on the Honor Code.
However, this month, we ask that you do exactly that. Take five minutes to read over the Honor Code Review Committee’s three recommendations, weigh the options and then cast your vote in the upcoming referendum. Voting opens tomorrow and runs through Dec. 9. Use this opportunity to voice your opinion on the Honor Code. Whether you are an earnest first year who just signed the pledge on your first midterm or a jaded Super Senior looking towards the exit — and whether we like it or not — the Honor Code is the foundation of our education at Middlebury.
