What was that? You didn’t cheat? Well, here’s the thing. You don’t have to cheat to violate the Honor Code. The Honor Committee only looks at your intent after it’s determined that you’re guilty. Guilty of what? Violating the Honor Code, of course.
That’s a good point. Article III, Section 3 of the Honor Committee Constitution does say that the Honor Committee punishes “cheating.” But it doesn’t explicitly say that cheating is the only thing you can do to get a penalty. Well, come on. That’s just hairsplitting. The constitution may not describe penalties for anything other than cheating, but that doesn’t mean that cheating is the only thing that you can be punished for. And besides, cheating doesn’t require the intent to cheat. As long as your action constitutes cheating, you’re guilty. You don’t have to know that you were cheating. Makes sense, right?
Well, maybe not. But even if it doesn’t, our hands are tied. See, “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” says that ignorance of exam regulations is not an adequate defense. OK, fair point. If your professor doesn’t tell you what the exam regulations are then ignorance would be an adequate defense. We really should revise that part. I guess we just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Yes, of course we have to obey “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.” It’s binding, just like the constitution is. That’s completely unambiguous and doesn’t need to be written down.
But look, it’s really not so bad. Ignorance alone isn’t an adequate defense, but reasonable ignorance is. A defense against what? Suspension, of course. Article III, Section 3 also says that reasonably misunderstanding an exam policy such that you didn’t know you were committing a violation, can result in a reduced penalty. That’s right, just a reduced penalty. We might still punish you, even after we acknowledge that the misunderstanding was reasonable. Your record will say that you were found guilty of violating the Honor Code, and people might assume that you maliciously cheated or did something “dishonorable.” But it’s no less than you would deserve for being deemed reasonable by the Honor Committee. Like I said, intent only matters after guilt has been determined. Well, OK. “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” does say that reasonable misunderstanding can be taken into account in determining whether a violation has occurred. So that does make it sound like your guilt or innocence can depend on your intent and knowledge. But since when have we been bound by “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities”?
Good question. What is a violation? What have you been accused of, if not cheating? See Article V, Section 1: A violation is just an attempt to give or receive assistance on an exam. Well, now you’re just being pedantic. Obviously that doesn’t include studying, even though that is a way to receive assistance on an exam. Rules don’t actually need to say what they mean. Besides, the next part says that other violations include attempting to gain an unfair advantage. True, it only says, “includes.” And it does distinguish between attempting to gain an unfair advantage and attempting to receive assistance as separate categories of violation. So I guess you can violate the Honor Code without doing anything that’s unfair to other students. But studying is fine. That much is clear.
I don’t know, I guess these are good points. But believe me, you’re not the first to think of them. The Committee thinks about these weird, incoherent passages a lot, and they’re pretty good at interpreting them on a case-by-case basis. And sometimes ignoring them, if that’s what fairness demands. Yes, of course every future Honor Committee will be as fair and capable as current and past ones. That’s a good question. Why does the Honor Committee have a constitution if it’s already so good at being fair? Well, the Honor Committee needs some guidance. And what’s the alternative? Since when are average Joe Princeton students qualified to decide who among them gets suspended and stigmatized?
So yes, if you’re found guilty, then you’re looking at a black mark on your Princeton record and more likely a suspension. Guilty of what? And with what result? Don’t ask.*
*Unless things change, this conversation is one that you or one or your close friends may be forced to have in the near future. Taking honor seriously should not mean sacrificing transparency and predictability. If you agree, please vote accordingly in the next USG election.
Jason Kaplan is a philosophy major from Easton, CT. He can be reached at jdk@princeton.edu.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.