RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrincePrinceton university’s Honor Code was established by undergraduates in 1893, creating a system of academic integrity and trust between students and faculty to be used for in-class examinations. In order to uphold the ideals of the Honor Code and ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Might want to explain that you excused Evan for being a Peer Representative ("What are those?") and Xiang for being on the Honor Committee ("What a bunch of self-righteous tools!").
But then again...why don't you just keep them in because they are clearly your best sources and indicate their affiliations full disclosure??
Without them this is completely useless edit without any intelligent analysis of how this change is to happen. No look at the round, redacted estimate of caseloads of either committee and how that might factor into any decision to change? No look into how the committee members themselves or the administration might consider the issue? I thought counterarguments should at least be addressed...
I have an idea! For your next edit, write on the pros and cons of abolishing the edits board. And recuse everyone!
@Fratticism - The disclaimer says it all; Larson and Ding recused themselves. Unless the Prince is lying, they chose to do so. If they don't want to weigh in because it may jeopardize their standing for whatever reason, that's entirely their prerogative (though I agree that it would be much stronger with their voices).
The current delineation is that the Honor Committee handles only violations of the Honor Code. The COD handles other academic infractions. Are you proposing rewriting the Constitution of the Honor System to include other academic infractions?
From the first FAQ at http://www.princeton.edu/honor/faq/
Q. What is the difference between the Honor Committee and the Committee on Discipline?
A. The Honor Committee handles violations of the Honor Code, which covers only in-class examinations. The Committee on Discipline handles all other academic violations (i.e. plagiarism, lab reports, homework, take-home exams) as well as disciplinary infractions.
"While the COD does a satisfactory job of handling cases regarding academic work..."
Oh, just admit up front that your editorial addresses something already OK the way it is, eh? How convincing!
You're all wrong...the Honor Committee also handles take-home exams if the exam was originally given as an in-class exam yet the student who is accused was able to take the exam as a take-home. This doesn't make much sense to me but that's the way it is. I always thought that the genesis of the honor code and it's reliance on student-only adjudication was that in-class exams are only witnessed by students, therefore, students should be responsible for its enforcement. But the HC DOES handle take home exams under these circumstances.
I think the pre-screening of accusations by a few HC -related people is a de-facto guilty verdict since the vast majority of HC cases result in a guilty verdict. Thus, hearings are already biased. The HC has limited experience with what innocence even looks like since most cases receive a guilty verdict. I think ALL accusations need to go to a full HC hearing.
Look at the composition of the HC: how many TOWER members are on the Committee? Have you ever noticed that class presidents beyond freshman year are typically unopposed giving them a right to be effectively, permanent members of the HC? Yeah, they are elected by the students, but nobody else wants the job.
Furthermore, the academic standards of plagiarism vary from discipline to discipline. Saying something correctly and precisely in STEM classes might look like plagiarism but saying it another way might be more wrong than right. I don't think the HC has the experience to judge plagiarism that a faculty member would have in certain departments. Students aren't here long enough or hear enough cases to gain this level of expertise. So I think plagiarism cases belong in the COD.
By the way, why are the discipline statistics password protected? What are the statistics? How many cases does the HC and COD hear and what is their outcome? By publishing statistics one might be able to see if these committees are being consistent or if the incidence of guilty verdicts come in waves...i.e. related to the membership of these committees. Publishing enforcement statistics is one way for the community to police itself.
Giving further power to a group of students in a "Lord of the Flies" Honor Committee is in itself a violation of justice. An accused student should be allowed to face their accuser. As an employer who has hired some students over the years who I believed were innocent, the student "star chamber" has some very troubling aspects to it. Tread carefully here Princeton. Peer positional power is a dangerous thing when there is no honest transparency for the accused. When you link this power with a forced curve grading system that increases competition (perceived or real) amongst type A personalities, you can foster a very toxic environment. No wonder student psychiatric service needs are accelerating . Visionary leadership requires that we focus on the entire Princeton experience for students and faculty.. But visions are goals. The here and now are the domain of effective leadership. And this is where the University, as great as it is, struggles as it seeks to address culture fissions whether through bicker reform, elimination of freshman rush (which encourages students to "rat out" anyone they suspect of socializing with certain affiliated students) or a failed grading policy. it is not leadership if no one follows; it is arrogance. But. Princeton is better than this. It is an extraordinary place. So let's get off of our "high horse" and look at Princeton experience holistically. Throw out the grading policy, it is absurd. Read Nancy Malkiel's grading advice to aspiring tenure track teachers - it downright scary as she tells them to "adjust their inner grader" , to curve down. Nancy was a student advocate and beloved teacher, what happened Nancy - when did you loose your touch. I doubt you intended to end your career this way. Who wants to be the Princeton "Hunger Games" Cicero. So back to the Honor Committee , and for that matter the freshman rush spies (we'll know a violation when we see) - just what type of environment are we fostering for 18 to 22 year olds. Does it foster integrity and growth, nurtured by trust or is it a "gotcha" environment that increases stress and unhealthy behaviors. Shirley, are you listening?
@Some take-home handled by HC
Then it was probably considered an in-class examination on some technicality. In any case, the HC applies both inside and outside the examination room, and specifically includes tampering with a graded in-class exam, plagiarism on an in-class exam, and lying to the HC committee.
Where is due process in all of this? The HC tells the accused that the accused must admit guilt and further that if the HC finds out anything from sources other than the accused, then the accused has not been "forthright" and would be subject to more egregious punishment. Where is innocent until proven guilty and the fifth amendment right to not self incriminate? Due process?...not here at this noble institution which is capable of so much more.
With no oversight by faculty/administration in the execution of the hearing, these type A student HC members think that everything they do is right. Who are their teachers in this Honor Code process? What kind of training do they get? How do we even know their behaviors are proper and fair and unbiased? We don't.
These students on the HC enjoy their power, They write about it on their grad school applications, they talk about it in job interviews, about how noble it is and how serious they are. They never mention how perverse the whole system is even though it's codified: there is a whole appeal process in the Honor Code yet there aren't enough HC members to field two distinct hearings in the event an appeal is granted...there are only 12 HC members and there are 7 members on a hearing plus two non-voting investigators. HMMM I count the need for 16 HC members if you claim to have a fair code.
No, giving the HC MORE power is a bad idea.
If the process is flawed, then the outcome is flawed. I have no respect for this process and am certain innocent students are victims of it. In the old days when cheating was as simple as sharing one's answers with another student, this code worked fine. As the code's application has gotten farther from this simple scenario, seven students with limited experience and no oversight (courts at least have a judge to keep the rules and behaviors straight) are ill-equipped to render fairness. This current HC model is truly a kangaroo court that is not worthy of expanded power. I'd have more faith in a COD with faculty members who are here for more than 3 years. Some HC members are rendering judgments with NO EXPERIENCE. So you might argue, "well many jury members have no experience." Yeah but lawyers and judges DO but there are no lawyers and judges in the HC process.