WPI students react to proposed Honor Code

Several weeks ago, the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Honesty put their draft of the WPI Honor Code on the web and invited students to comment on it. The responses poured in, and when they were tallied, the overwhelming majority of students were against the Honor Code as written. Reasons varied, but most students cited the so-called "rat rule" as the reason they disliked it.

"I go to WPI to be educated," said one student, "Not to baby-sit other students or to act as Big Brother. If I witness a student cheating, I should not have any responsibility to report them. In no way do I believe that I have the right to tell a student what is best for him or that it's my civil duty to turn that student in." Said another student, "If, during a test, I was to take a brief break, and witnessed a student cheating, I would be required by the code to report the cheating. Such a responsibility would interfere with my ability to objectively continue with the test, and could impact my ability. Potential jeopardy to my academic performance is unacceptable."

Others felt that an Honor Code would not make a difference at WPI. "My high school was thinking of implementing an Honor Code. We concluded that an Honor Code would not stop the students who were going to be dishonest from doing so." Another student made the point that "Those who would follow the Honor Code already have a sense of their own honor and don't need it to be codified."

What does the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Honesty have to say to these points? Last April, the committee released a document stating the reasons why WPI should have an Honor Code and answering some of the common questions. For example, why should there be a "Rat Rule"? According to the Committee, "A student's telling a peer that he or she has witnessed a violation, we believe, increases the likelihood that code violators will turn themselves in to the Honor Council in hopes of winning lesser penalties by signs of remorse."

And there's more: "A difficult issue with all codes that have a non-toleration clause is the degree of anonymity that can be given to someone who reports a violation. We believe it is realistic to assume that many WPI students would be inhibited from reporting violations committed by friends if their names were revealed. It is of major importance to guarantee secrecy to such students. On the other hand, students must be willing to discuss with the Honor Council what they have witnessed. The code must not create an atmosphere in which anonymous accusations proliferate, paralyzing the process of justice."

And what of the accusations that an Honor Code will not have an affect on current behavior on campus? "For an Honor Code to function meaningfully in the culture of an institution it is important that violations of the code not be taken lightly. On the other hand, this code recognizes that students should be allowed to learn from their mistakes. The commitment of this institution and its members toward matters of academic honesty is reinforced by the capacity of the Honor Council to require a violator to take a non-credit seminar on academic honesty."

Despite these arguments in favor, the SGA decided on October 17th to reject the Honor Code as written, objecting to it on several points:

• The focus of the Honor Code is solely academic, while an effective code should address all facets of student life
• The "rat rule" conflicts with the team oriented nature of WPI, as it encourages individualism and discourages collaboration
• The Honor Council is redundant, as the Campus Hearing Board carries out those functions currently
• Student investigators would create an atmosphere of distrust on campus.

The SGA did vote to support the creation of a campus-wide standard for the handling of academic honesty violations and language that states WPI community members should behave in an honorable, ethical, and professional manner. As stated in the resolution of the SGA, "We are concerned with the tenets of campus culture to which we hold dear, as well as the superfluous expenditure of student and faculty energy that would be required to implement a code such as this one."