Anyone paying attention to higher education can clearly see that institutions have a cheating problem. Cheating first exploded during the Covid-19 pandemic and has only continued to rise with the dawn of generative artificial intelligence. This has led to a moment of reckoning for many institutions: How do we reconcile our traditional honor codes with the modern reality of widespread cheating?
The erosion of trust caused by cheating is especially damaging to a small, residential liberal arts community like Middlebury. At the end of my first year, my psychology professor caught an organized cheating ring in his senior-level seminar. He then sought departmental approval to proctor exams for all his courses and has not looked back since. Incidents like these are a tragedy for the Middlebury community. How can we expect our graduates to be thoughtful and ethical leaders,” as the Middlebury website proudly states, when we cannot trust our students to meet the standards of academic integrity?
You may think this will be an op-ed calling for stiffer punishments, blanket permission to proctor exams and the construction of an academic panopticon on Battell Beach. However, I do not think such sweeping measures are a productive or valid response to increased cheating or the shortcomings of the college’s Honor Code. Instead, I believe we need thoughtful reforms to the Honor Code paired with targeted enhancements to the test-taking system.
The Honor Code is no longer present in the minds of students. As a peer writing tutor for the CTLR, I have had countless students ask me what the Honor Code is, how to sign it on their assignments and what it actually means. As students no longer physically sign the Honor Code during their orientation week, its ritual and ceremonial dimension is lost. Can we be surprised that students don’t follow the Honor Code if we do not continually demonstrate its significance or teach it?
We should reinstate signing the Honor Code during orientation to establish its importance for each incoming Middlebury class. Studies investigating cheating behaviors have found that students learn how to cheat from their peers, which emphasizes the importance of early intervention. The signing could be coupled with workshops that engage students in discussions about academic integrity and why it matters, framing the Honor Code as a shared commitment rather than a passive agreement.
Considering the pace at which tools like ChatGPT are developing, and the near impossibility of accurately detecting their use, our efforts are better spent modifying the environment and behavior of the students that use AI. Faculty should design assessments that are less conducive to cheating, such as open-book exams, sit-down written essays or assignments that require critical thinking and unique applications of knowledge. Professors should also exercise their right to proctor exams, especially after instances of cheating. This will demonstrate the cause-and-effect of academic dishonesty. Research also indicates that reminding students of academic integrity policies and the consequences of cheating significantly reduces dishonest behavior during exams. Middlebury should incorporate such reminders before tests to reinforce awareness and uphold academic honesty.
When violations of the Honor Code do occur, our goal should not be to shame and expel. Instead, we should focus on educating and reforming. Reflection essays and community service tied to academic workshops would educate rather than purely punish. Such nuanced and holistic approaches would be aligned with Middlebury’s commitment to using restorative practices and would improve upon the complexities of the existing system, where the default punishment is suspension.
While studies have found compelling evidence that close monitoring strategies can eliminate cheating, we should measure these interventions against the ideals of the Honor Code. Yes, the scrutiny of more proctors for in-person exams or lockdown browsers for online exams would probably significantly reduce cheating. But these measures would alienate us from the spirit of the Honor Code. The goal of any policy changes to the Honor Code or test-taking processes at Middlebury should not be to eliminate cheating by any means necessary, but instead to rebuild trust and accountability.
While institutions like Middlebury must foster academic integrity, students are not blameless. Cheating is a choice, and upholding the Honor Code starts with individual accountability. Tools like ChatGPT may tempt dishonesty, but trust in our community depends on students choosing integrity, even when no one is watching.
Middlebury should aim for reforms that uphold the spirit of the Honor Code while addressing modern challenges to academic integrity. By reinforcing the code’s visibility, fostering a deeper understanding of its importance, and combining trust with practical safeguards, we can rebuild a culture where integrity is not enforced but embraced. This approach aligns with Middlebury’s mission to prepare ethical leaders and shows that maintaining academic honesty in a changing world is possible.
