2008 Woodie Awards
Honor Code Controversy
Is the updated Rollins Honor Code a flawed system?
Meghan Waters
Issue date: 4/22/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
A modified honor code has been rolling around Rollins, hoping for approval for some time now. There is only one problem: student representatives and faculty have to actually agree on what these alterations should entail.
The purpose of this honor code revision is to change the immoral culture of Rollins students by scaring the living daylights out of them. As of now, if a professor believes that a student has broken the honor code in their classroom, the professor is allowed to use his or her own discretion to select an appropriate punishment for the student. This is called professional autonomy and is why physicians are allowed to personally diagnose their patients and why lawyers are allowed to present their own case. My point is that professional autonomy has been a successful practice for generations of professors and students at Rollins.
However, the new honor code proposal would strip Rollins' professors of all their personal discretion and force them to turn in any student who they suspect of breaking the honor code. Although proponents of the new honor code believe that a fairer, more standardized system of conviction and sentencing will sprout from this situation, I disagree. Professors tend to get to know their students throughout the semester, and if they catch a student cheating or plagiarizing, wouldn't you rather have a professor who understands your personality judging the situation rather than a panel of a few estranged peers.
Also, allocating minimum sentences does not take every unique situation into account and assumes that every break of the honor code is a malicious act and that the student truly intended to deceive the professor. Sure, minimum sentences will allow students to recognize the repercussions of their crime before they commit it, but how realistic is it to assume that cheaters and plagiarizers really take the time to research the punishment for their offense. As well as punishing the guilty, minimum sentences will severely punish those who accidentally plagiarized or made a minor infraction of the honor code.
By far, the most controversial aspect of the new honor policy is that of the provision that forces students to report any and all breaks in the honor code that they personally witness. This means that students must turn in their friends and colleagues or else they could be turned in for withholding information. Is it really the responsibility of the students to curb the spread of cheating and plagiarism? Should the student who squealed on his friend be able to keep his identity confidential or not? Would students ever really report these offenses to Rollins faculty without having a dislike of or vendetta against the accused student? These are all questions that Rollins faculty and the student body have to ask themselves before making such an important decision.
The purpose of this honor code revision is to change the immoral culture of Rollins students by scaring the living daylights out of them. As of now, if a professor believes that a student has broken the honor code in their classroom, the professor is allowed to use his or her own discretion to select an appropriate punishment for the student. This is called professional autonomy and is why physicians are allowed to personally diagnose their patients and why lawyers are allowed to present their own case. My point is that professional autonomy has been a successful practice for generations of professors and students at Rollins.
However, the new honor code proposal would strip Rollins' professors of all their personal discretion and force them to turn in any student who they suspect of breaking the honor code. Although proponents of the new honor code believe that a fairer, more standardized system of conviction and sentencing will sprout from this situation, I disagree. Professors tend to get to know their students throughout the semester, and if they catch a student cheating or plagiarizing, wouldn't you rather have a professor who understands your personality judging the situation rather than a panel of a few estranged peers.
Also, allocating minimum sentences does not take every unique situation into account and assumes that every break of the honor code is a malicious act and that the student truly intended to deceive the professor. Sure, minimum sentences will allow students to recognize the repercussions of their crime before they commit it, but how realistic is it to assume that cheaters and plagiarizers really take the time to research the punishment for their offense. As well as punishing the guilty, minimum sentences will severely punish those who accidentally plagiarized or made a minor infraction of the honor code.
By far, the most controversial aspect of the new honor policy is that of the provision that forces students to report any and all breaks in the honor code that they personally witness. This means that students must turn in their friends and colleagues or else they could be turned in for withholding information. Is it really the responsibility of the students to curb the spread of cheating and plagiarism? Should the student who squealed on his friend be able to keep his identity confidential or not? Would students ever really report these offenses to Rollins faculty without having a dislike of or vendetta against the accused student? These are all questions that Rollins faculty and the student body have to ask themselves before making such an important decision.