Strengthening the Honor Committee

The change that we have been considering eliminates the distinction between alternate and full members on the committee. As of now, the Honor Committee consists of nine full members and three alternate members. The main difference between “full” and “alternate” members is that full members investigate potential violations of the Honor Code while alternate members do not. Alternate members receive the same training as full members, including how to conduct an investigation, and often participate in a comparable number of hearings.

An investigation is a time-sensitive process aimed at gathering all the facts related to the case at hand. As such, the limitation on the number of Honor Committee members permitted to conduct investigations creates a strain on the committee when there are many concurrent reports. Allowing all members of the Honor Committee to conduct investigations would alleviate this burden and would ensure that all investigations are conducted in as timely and thorough a manner as possible.

This change is a relatively small adjustment that we think will have a positive impact on the way the Honor Committee operates. Yet we remain aware that students and faculty may have more fundamental questions, concerns or ideas about the Honor System. For example, every testing period, the Honor Committee receives numerous complaints and reports about the disorder at the end of examinations. Many students feel disadvantaged if their classmates continue working after an exam has ended. In addition, a recent column in the ‘Prince’ lamented the limited range of penalties that the Honor Committee can recommend. Furthermore, we often find that some members of the Princeton community are unsure about which committee handles different kinds of academic integrity issues (the all-student Honor Committee addresses in-class examinations, while the Committee on Discipline, made up of students, faculty and administrators, manages take-home exams, problem sets and papers). We would like to begin a campus-wide discussion about these issues and about any other questions or concerns that members of the Princeton community might have with respect to the Honor System.

To this end, the Honor Committee plans to host a town hall meeting in April that will be open to all members of the Princeton community. As always, we welcome your questions and concerns, which you can e-mail to honor@princeton.edu or submit anonymously via the Honor Committee's website. At the town hall meeting, we will address any inquiries that have been submitted, talk about the referendum and then open up the discussion to the audience.

As members of the Honor Committee, we critically examine elements of the honor system on a regular basis in an effort to recognize where improvements can be made. We would like to better involve the campus community in this process, and we hope that this article and the ensuing town hall meeting will help us take positive steps in that direction. The Honor Code is a shared agreement between students and faculty that underscores the values for which this University stands. It belongs to this community, and we encourage all undergraduates and faculty to exercise their ownership of it.

Alex Rosen is an economics major from Allentown, Pa. Peter Dunbar is a chemistry major from Oxford, Miss. Mr. Dunbar is the Chair of the Honor Committee. Mr. Rosen is the Committee’s clerk and will chair the Committee next year. They can be reached at arr@princeton.edu and pdunbar@princeton.edu, respectively.