editorial Academic dishonesty requires discussion, not proctors

Author: [no author name found]

Claims about the academic dishonesty of Middlebury students are startling. More disturbing still, however, is the proposal by some members of the faculty to place professors as proctors in classrooms during exams. Cheating, plagiarism and other violations of Middlebury's oft-quoted, oft-inscribed Honor Code deserve serious attention, but proctoring exams would function as a staggering blow to the Honor Code as we know it.

This is not to say, of course, that we should not be considering revisions to the Honor Code itself, or to the way in which the Honor Code is executed. Rather, before making the drastic decision to breech what is a traditionally revered Middlebury tradition, members of the faculty and student body both must consider more creative solutions. The most immediate (and arguably effective) way to tackle academic dishonesty on campus is to educate students more fully about the Honor Code itself. While Associate Dean of the College Gus Jordan's 2000 research indicates that over 80 percent of students will cheat in some way before completing their degrees, the majority of students profess to respecting the Honor Code. However, despite the early emphasis on the Honor Code - in both the letter to accepted students and in the Honor Code signing ceremony during first-year orientation - few students understand the details of the pledge. More importantly, ongoing education would be a helpful reminder to students at times overwhelmed by the pressures of the College.

Education can be supplemented by premeditated course and exam design. Understandably, cheating is more prevalent - or at least more feasible - in certain classes or departments. Professors who are concerned about academic dishonesty might forgo, perhaps, take-home or self-scheduled exams in favor of in-class tests or intentionally collaborative work. We are saddened to hear that entire departments have voiced concerns about rampant cheating, but any "crisis" within individual departments should be handled within these disciplines. Solutions must at least be attempted on the class or departmental level before the Honor Code, as it stands currently, is subjected to any serious revisions.

The judicial boards deserve a critical look if, as faculty members are asserting, professors have lost faith in the system's ability to prosecute cheaters. Members of the community and academic judicial boards of the College devote an unfathomable amount of energy and diligence to the difficult job of upholding the Honor Code. Opening lines of dialogue between the boards and faculty would circumvent the clash of opinions over major alterations to the pledge itself.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, discussions about academic integrity should not be happening solely in the provinces of faculty meetings. Creative solutions for addressing academic dishonesty will be most effective when they come from within the student body, instead of being opposed up it. Professors should voice their concerns with their students just as candidly as they do with their colleagues. Speaking frankly about academic honesty would not only serve to remind students of the importance of the Honor Code, but would also establish a classroom atmosphere founded on the mutual understanding of expectations. Ultimately, engaging the students who are grappling with questions of academic dishonesty will serve the community better than instating punitive measures that punish the student body at large.

One of Middlebury's most charming and indeed unique characteristics is the trust that exists between students and their professors. This trust is reciprocal, and allowing professors to proctor exams sends a devastating message about a lack of trust in this community. Trust that infractions of plagiarism and cheating are as upsetting to students as they are to professors. Engage us in this debate sooner rather than later.