Joost Bosland's column on "the Broverman Experiment" contains some assumptions that I would like respectfully to challenge.
First is the notion that the Duke Community Standard, all of two months in operation, should have worked some magic by now: appalled by the distrust he sees among students, Bosland states that "If the Community Standard were all it pretended to be, this [belief that lots of students are cheating] would be antediluvian by now." But the Duke Community Standard is not an incantation, it's an expectation and, yes, a hope.
Another assumption in the column, this one less explicit, is that an honor code, by whatever name, should be expected to eliminate cheating, and if it doesn't, it's a failure. Although national research indicates lower levels of cheating at schools with honor codes, these codes are only effective as part of an ongoing conversation about honor. Cheating will never be eliminated but it can be reduced if the community pays attention to it.
Which brings me to the columnist's assumption that the DCS encourages "ratting" and is doomed to failure because students will not report on others. The previous Honor Code also had a non-toleration clause, but the DCS makes it clearer that if we know of cheating we should do something about it, to refuse to let it define us. Students, not only faculty, have the responsibility to build a culture of integrity at Duke. The ones who reported suspected cheating to Professor Broverman understand this point.
Other assumptions are not the author's, necessarily, but the students' in "the Broverman Experiment": that competitive students will inevitably cheat if given the opportunity, that professors themselves cheat "all the time," that students have a right to cheat, etc. I wonder if these rationales for cheating have been built up over many years; if so, they will take longer to change than a few months, requiring concerted efforts from everyone.
The Community Standard is no more or less than a statement of values. To say that it "does not work" is to say that undergraduates do not want to be bound by those fundamental values of honor, respect, trustworthiness. I don't believe that. I wholeheartedly endorse Bosland's last remarks: where we go now "depends on the type of community we want to set the standard for." I agree that "something has to change" but I caution against assigning undue weight to the honor code per se and blaming it when integrity problems surface.
Judith Ruderman
Chair, Academic Integrity Council
Vice Provost for Academic
and Administrative Services
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.