Architects of honor

A notochord is a primitive backbone in most low vertebrates. But at Princeton University it has played a much more significant role, igniting the most highly publicized court case involving the University's 107-year-old Honor System and perhaps initiating decades of future discussion and debate about the code.

When Robert Clayton '82 answered question number 19 — identifying the notochord on an amphioxus — for a make-up lab practical exam, he says he never thought it would lead to questions of academic fraud or a controversial court battle that would last nearly six years.

"I was totally oblivious to anything else going on," he said in an interview earlier this week.

Clayton's case — the first time anyone challenged the Honor System in a court of law — was not the first instance in which a student said he or she felt the Honor Committee's procedures were unfair.

And it has not been the last.

"Ever since I became academics chair, students have come up to me who have been involved in different Honor Committee investigations and have spoken to me about what they thought could be fixed," said Jeff Gelfand '01, USG academics chair for the past two years. "Some students have expressed concern about the conduct of certain committee members and the manner in which hearings are conducted."

According to Clayton — who had missed the exam because he was competing in the Eastern championships as a member of the swim team — he and a friend had completed the exam and were waiting for a teaching assistant to return. Clayton said he and the student were talking about the exam at the front door, not realizing that another student was taking the test.

But according to Robert Varrin '81 — the student who was still taking the exam — Clayton consulted a lab manual on the teaching assistant's desk and changed the answer on his exam paper.

"I've never seen anybody in my life in high school or kindergarten cheat so blatantly," Varrin said in his testimony during the Honor Committee hearing. "There's no question in my mind that this was a violation of the code."

The committee voted to convict Clayton and enact a one-year suspension.

"Everything the Honor Committee heard was consistent with the allegations," said Chris Shields '79, who was the Honor Committee chair at the time.

After Clayton was suspended, he unsuccessfully appealed his case to former University President William Bowen and subsequently sued the University trustees for not adequately regulating the Honor Committee. He claimed the committee failed to advise him of his rights, improperly interrogated him before the hearing and abrogated his rights during the hearing.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Clayton asked for $500,000 in damages.

A long federal court battle ensued, and on May 6, 1985, Trenton District Judge Harold Ackerman ruled that the committee's procedures were fair, upholding the University's method of academic discipline.

However, Clayton, now a surgeon, still feels cheated.

"A week before mine, a student had been accused and got off. He went out and got drunk and boasted that he had gotten away with it. They changed the rules to stick it to the next guy," Clayton said. "There's a lack of control in their policies. There's fluctuating standards for infractions and evidence."

Clayton's sentiments are not uncommon. Other students have challenged the Honor Committee's decisions in court. And some have proposed sweeping changes to the group Clayton calls "an unfair tribunal."

"I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code during this examination."

It is a well-rehearsed line embedded in students' minds. In some ways, it is a quasi-religious mantra of a system that to most students is as sacred to the University as the Bible is to Christianity. The Honor Pledge has been written on countless in-class exams by students since the Honor System's establishment in 1893.

The Honor System is a unique aspect of the University's academic program, unmatched by other top-rated universities and holding Princeton students to a level of integrity comparable to the nation's most respected military schools.

Though students today can spout the Honor Pledge as quickly as the Pledge of Allegiance and unconsciously scribble it in their rush to leave the examination room, some faculty and campus leaders question whether most students really understand its significance.

"There's widespread ignorance about the pledge," said English professor John Fleming, who served as the Honor Committee's sole faculty adviser for 15 years and still advises the committee. "I receive the Honor Code pledge on out-of-class papers, and it's irrelevant."

Many students do not realize that the Honor Code covers only in-class examinations and that all other forms of academic work such as take-home exams, term papers, problem sets and computer programs fall under the jurisdiction of the Discipline Committee.

In response to widespread misunderstanding about the Honor System, current Honor Committee chair Justin Browne '01 is planning a campaign next semester to raise awareness of the code and to generate discussion about its future.

"The code is in a state of jeopardy," he said in an interview in December. "We're not really certain about its future role. I'd like to take a more proactive role to push dialogue. Next semester, this will be an issue."

Possible reforms being discussed by the committee include the creation of an organization to provide accused students with defense advocates, the filing of case summaries in Firestone library and the expansion of the code's jurisdiction. Browne said broadening the authority of the code would be his primary focus this spring.

"When our code was established in 1893, its purpose was to cover all academic work," Browne said. "We've become so technologically advanced with out-of-class exams that a lot of work falls outside in-class exams."

With the advent of technology and increased flexibility in testing procedures at academic institutions nationwide, the Honor Code has come to play a decreasingly important role in some aspects of University academics.

Browne's proposed changes call for expanding the jurisdiction of the Honor Code to cover cheating on all academic work in and out of the classroom. His proposal has gained the backing of some student government officers and members of the faculty.

"I am in full support of that," USG president-elect Joe Kochan '02 said. "It's a very important idea. I don't think there is any reason that the code shouldn't be expanded."

Economics professor Elizabeth Bogan echoed Kochan's opinion. "I support expanding jurisdiction on exams to cover all exams," she said.

Bogan became one of three faculty advisers added to the committee last semester. In addition to Bogan, molecular biology professor Edward Cox and Jim Sturm — an electrical engineering professor and the director of the University's Center for Photonics and Optoelectronic Materials — advise the committee.

However, the faculty advisers play minimal roles in the committee's proceedings. Instead, these advisers are meant to serve as resources for institutional memory and liaisons between the committee and the faculty.

"[My role] has been dependent on the committee," Fleming said. "I never make an initiative on my own."

Another proposed change to the Honor Committee constitution is the formation of a defense advocate pool.

When a student is accused of a violation, he or she is given the right to choose a defense advocate who represents him or her in the hearings. The defense advocate — who must be an undergraduate student — can question witnesses including the accuser and evaluate the evidence presented by the committee's investigators.

But according to David Tannenbaum '01 — who served on the Honor Committee during his sophomore year and formulated the proposal for the defense advocate pool — not all advocates are equally knowledgeable.

"Some underclassmen had a lot of trouble finding someone who could do a really good job," Tannenbaum said. "There are times when defense advocates are not prepared or less experienced. Some people are better at weighing evidence and questioning witnesses than other people."

The pool — to be structured as a separate student organization — would provide defense advocates for accused students who have trouble finding someone to represent them. The organization would also offer guidance to defense advocates chosen by students in question.

Tannenbaum said advocates in the pool — all of whom would sign agreements of confidentiality — likely would be past honor committee members and students involved in activities that require similar skills such as Whig-Clio or the pre-law organization.

Tannenbaum added that the advocate pool could be established as early as next semester and that the Honor Committee and its lawyer currently are reviewing the idea.

Meanwhile, Browne voiced support for the pool. "I'm in favor of it," he said.

To improve students' understanding of how the Honor Code works, Browne and committee members are considering publishing case summaries without identifying information and making them available at Firestone library.

The current procedure is that only Honor Committee members can read case summaries in which a student was convicted. In cases when a student was acquitted, all records are destroyed.

One obstacle the Honor Committee faces today is that relatively few cheating cases are reported. It seems likely that many students write and sign the essay freshman year not expecting ever to be confronted with the issue of cheating. And perhaps some know, in the back of their minds, that they would not turn in a student even if the incident were blatant.

Yet only one student has ever formally challenged the two-fold honor agreement freshmen are asked to sign, which requires that they promise both not to cheat and to turn in other students whom they observe cheating.

That student was Jean Manas '87, now a vice president in investment banking for Goldman, Sachs & Co. In his essay written the summer before he enrolled in 1983, Manas refused to turn in anyone whom he observed cheating.

"I philosophically did not like the idea of turning a student in for a penalty that could result in expulsion," he said. In Manas' first days on campus, the Honor Committee contacted him regarding his essay.

"I explained my position, and they said then you can't enroll," he said. Not knowing where to turn and facing the possibility that he would have to return home to Istanbul, Turkey, Manas contacted Wilson School professor Stanley Katz, who was then the master of Rockefeller College.

Katz spoke with Vice President and Secretary Thomas Wright '62, who was then the University general counsel, and concluded that the committee did not have the right to deny Manas admission.

"I was appalled by the pressure that they tried to put on him," Katz said in an interview.

Wright and Katz decided that if Manas observed an Honor Code violation, he would be required to turn himself in for not reporting it, which according to the Honor Committee's chair at the time, was a non-punishable offense.

When asked whether students today could refuse to sign the two-fold honor agreement, Browne said this is not an option.

"Matriculating is contingent upon the acceptance of the Honor Code," he said. "We have a two-fold responsibility. Both things are expected of a student to be at Princeton."

Manas' case, however, raises an important issue. Under the system, all students are required to proctor their peers. But students sometimes question whether they would turn in a close friend for violating the Honor Code. For them, as it was with Manas, that decision involves a question of honor.