Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 26, 1952)
THE UO HONOR CODE COMMITTEE REPORTS (Editor's Note: For the past 15 weeks a senate com- | mittee has been laboring over a report on the possibilities of an honor system for the University of Oregon. The report is now completed and will be in the hands of ASUO senators by Thursday. Since the plan, if adopted, would bear on every student in this University, we though our readers would be in terested in the full report of the committee. So. on this page we are printing an introduction to the report (written from comments and opinions of the entire committee) and the first section of the report itself. (The remaining sections will appear in following papers.) An. Introduction By E. G. Ebbighausen Committee Chairman The honor code committee was appointed by ASUO President Bill C trey on Nov. 8, 1951, and the appointments were approved by the senate at that meeting. Since the above date the committee has met o \ numerous occasions and the results of their deliberations appear in t.iis report, which is presented to the senate for its consideration and approval. . The charge given . . . ... to the honor code committee was “to investigate the honor system It ogram". As will appear from this report, the committee has interp ieted this charge very broadly. It has not only investigated many of t> e facets of an honor system, but has recommended procedures to be e nployed in the setting up of an honor system at the University of Oregon, should the decision be made to make that attempt. The committee, either in session or as individuals, has interviewed numbers of students, faculty and members of the University admin istratoin. The committee has asked and received information from schools that now have an honor system. Three student members went to Stanford university to gather information about that school’s long established honor system. The committee concludes, as a result of its extensive deliberations, that an honor system would be desirable here at the University of Oregon. One central, overwhelmingly important fact. . . . . . should never be forgotten and that is that for an honor system to work it must be wholeheartedly adopted by the students as a result of a decision that they alone can make. Neither the senate, this com r. ttee, the faculty, nor the administration can impose an honor system upon the students of this University and expect it to function. The precedents for this statement are numerous. The adoption of an h nor system must be done by the students themselves, and its con tinued success will clearly depend upon the wholehearted individual a'-d collective recognition of the responsibilities involved. The honor code committee believes that the students of the University of Oregon s. jould be given an opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they wish an honor system. An important addition to the conviction . . . ... expressed above is that the faculty of this University also has a responsibility to cooperate with the students if an honor system is adopted. The continued success of an honor system depends not only c,-on student realization of responsibility, but also the belief of the f >.culty that the system functions. tf, as the committee believes, the faculty is now skeptical of the suc cess of an honor system, it must be recognized that its faculty has considerable precedent for this attitude. It is up to the students to prove to the faculty that cheating in this University can be greatly reduced if the students are given the responsibility of making this attempt. S.n the event that the senate should approve the attempt to adopt a. honor system at the University of Oregon, this committee recom r. ends the following proedure: f. The senate should approve the beginning, by this committee, (of) a, extensive orientation program to acquaint the students with their responsibilities and duties under an honor system. The orientation pro g am is outlined in this report. After this orientation program is completed, it is reeonunended t at a student referendum be taken in order to determine the strength o' student sentiment and desire for an honor system. 3. The third step is mandatory. Only the faculty of this University ni approve the formal adoption and use of an honor system. There f-j-e, it is recommended that if the expressed student desire for an l «nor system is strong, the senate should petition the faculty through t:.e student discipline coinmitee for the adoption of an honor system.! If the student discipline committee . . . ... should decide favorably upon the petition, then presumably the r atter would rest in their hands—further action would be up to that committee. It should be recognized that the student discipline com mittee is a body set up by the faculty with powers to handle matters of student discipline. It is presumed that the committee would bring the r .tter before the Jeneral faculty and ask for its approval. It is recommended that all possible means be used to discover stu dent opinion. A highly favorable student referendum would be very desirable and indeed necessary. If sentiment for the system were high, it is hoped that spontaneous student petitions would be directed to the student discipline committee or the general faculty. Expressions of individual ... ... student approval to instructors would certainly he a strong fac to/.-. If the faculty is going to approve the formal adoption of an honor system, it must be convinced that the students are really ready to give it effective support. A It should not be forgotten that there is the possibility that the st.dent response to the establishment of an honor system may not be highly favorable. If student opinion should be divided or c learly against au: honor system, then this committee recommends that the- senate Should not petition the student discipline committee for instigation of ttv* system. Instead, this committee recommends that the senate ap prove the continuation of efforts to carry the student body orientation program into the next academic year. General Philosophy . A Positive, Broad Approach' An Honor code implies a posi tive and broad approach to learn ing in the University. It is envisioned as a strong step in the direction of developing a mature attitude toward the acqui sition of knowledge and the fos tering of a genuine pride in the academic excellence of the school. Faith in the efficacy of an honor code rests ultimately in the con viction that men and women of college age will respond positively to a situation which recognizes them as responsible and essentially honest individuals and which al lows them to pursue their studies and undergo examinations in an atmosphere of freedom from sus picion and in an environment unin hibited by artificial restraints. Won't End Cheating It is not asserted that the adop tion of an honor code will eliminate all cheating, or that it will even curtail cheating drastically at the outset. However, it is our convic tion that over a reasonable period of time and by means of continu ous indoctrination in its applica tion student attitudes can be so shaped as to support an honor code and justify its adoption. Some specific advantages which it is hoped will result should an honor system be installed at the University of Oregon include: 0 The elevation of academic standards. 0 An increase in the area of student government. 0 The establishment of a strong tradition of honor in the University. 0 A decrease in cheating. 0 Development of a deeper sense of responsibility and a growth in self-reliance. 0 An increase in student’s sense of responsibility and a growth in self-reliance. 0 Development of a deeper sense of personal Integrity within individual students. 0 A growth in mutual confi dence and respect among students, faculty and the administration. ^ Increased sense of identifi cation with the University family on the part of the student. 0 Enhance the prestige and reputation of the University of Oregon. 0 Help combat dishonesty and lack of responsibility in public life. Possible Arguments Many Advanced, Most Refuted 1. State school requires only high school diploma for entrance. Cal iber of students low; therefore, honor system won't work at Ore gon. The sense of inferiority stem ming from the fact that students are admitted to the University, virtually unscreened, seems to have reached alarming and, we believe,, unjustified proportions. Dubious Assumption The reasoning of this argument against the Honor Code implies a negative correlation between co called low caliber students and honesty. This is a dubious as sumption and certainly one which is difficult or impossible to prove. If it is argued that students on the border-line academically are likely to resort to cheating to stay in school, then the same thing can be said of students in that status at any university no matter what its criteria of selectivity may be. Further, by supporting the hon or code the student is able to share in the responsiiblity and privilege of maintaining the academic standards of the University. 2. Cheating is tolerated, if not accepted, by-most students. Regardless of whether the slu dent tolerates or accepts cheating, he is still aware of the difference between right and wrong. Once the attitude is instilled thut the ha bituul cheater contributes to the delinquency of the entire student body and threatens the reputation of the University (and by exten sion impairs the worth and utility of the degree) many of the qualms about reporting infractions of the code will dissipate. S. No traditions of honor, char acter or high morals exist at the University of Oregon. This simply is not true. This stu dent body is neither corrupt nor amoral. It is granted that traditions of honor, character and high morals can be strengthened oil this cam pus and one of the ways to ac complish just this is to establish an honor code. In short, and honor code would help build such tradi tions where they are lacking and , reinforce them where they already I exist. 4. Students would not report violators. Admittedly the reporting of vio lators would not be brisk at the J inception of the honor system. However, with ita growth nnd with an adequate orientation program students would eventually come to I feel that it is as much an obilga i lion to report violators as it Is not i to violate. System Will Improve Once enthusiasm and confidence in the honor code is generated stu I dents will tend to feel that the ' violator is breaking down some thing in which he believes; that he | is conspiring to undermine a sys tem which they have voluntarily I adopted and are trying to make 1 function effectively. At this point it is contended re ! porters of flagrant violations will | cease to feel guilty of "informing” I should they turn in the license ! number of a hit-and-run driver. Fraternities, sororities, dorms and other living organizations pro vide hotbeds for cheating rings. On tlie contrary, living organi zations under the Oregon honor j code can be the strongest backers of the plan. Willi proper orienta tion they can exert internal pres sure on their membership to back the plan. Support Needed Concerted and consistent sup : port of the honor code by any sig , nificant segment of the living or i ganizations can almost guarantee the success on an honor system. By support of the honor code a ; living group woultl not only in crease Its Holf-rcliance and Hell* 1 respect but It would also bind Jt-1 self more closely to the University ^ nnd to other living groups. «. Lack of trusting attitude on the part of many professors. *» Actually, many professors would welcome the honor system, e*pe*|* daily as It gave indications of suc cess. If the students really want and ask for an honor code It is be lieved that the large majority of the professors will coopcrutc lr^ supporting the experiment. Actually, It realty doesn’t mat ter. The students can bypass the , Instructor. 7. Incoming frosh would have a 4 hard time adjusting to the honor system after general cheating en vironment In high schools. ' * Assuming this to be true, r.n-f assumption which at least one ad-^_ mlnistrator in the office of stu dent affairs claims Is absolutely false, this merely provides added incentive for overcoming such con- * dltioning through the honor code,- p H. Natural or habitual cheater*, would tend to make efforts to Itcutj the system. V' * J Naturally, and in so doing might" well antagonize sincere students1* to the extent that an effective * wedge in the reluctance to report! violators would be achieved. Add to Effectiveness This then would tend to udd to'v the effectiveness of the honor code, rather than to detract from it. In , fact, it might be the factor which would "make" rather than "break/ the system. 9. Two or more students with a grudge against a fellow student would try to “frame” him. "Framing" of course is a possi bility in any situation where there are procedures set up for enforcing a system. It is not believed sueh tactic i would be resorted to very often. In the face of vehement denial on the part of the accused and In the absence of strong evidence, the al leged violator would probably l*j declared not guilty but his caso would be filed. A second offense with the same detectors and re porters would cast doubt on the validity of the charge. On the other hand, a repeat with different detectors and reporter if would look bad for the supposed ■ violator. At any rale such things! are u part of the machinery of dc-^ tection and punishment. It should be emphasized that the primary emphasis in the institu-’ tion and operation of the honor system is preventative rather than punitive. Report on an Operating Honor System How Are Cheaters Caught, Treated? Here's the Way Stanford Does It (1.1. Note: Tliis ‘s the second of a series of three on the honor code I now in operation at Stanford university.) By Phil Bettens How does the honor system at Stanford work ? Here’s what a subcommittee of the honor code committee report ed after a trip there. Violators, reported by either students or professors, are tried before a joint session of the men’s and women's council who other wise act as a sort of discipline committee sitting as the council for student control. Faculty Doesn't Sit The faculty has no part in hear ing the cases, except that the dean of students is empowered to review all cases and send them back for retrial if necessary. All members of the council are elected by the student body. No names of violators are re leased, although a bare outline of the trial, stating whether a man or woman offender, appears in the Stanford Daily. The article, ac cording to the commtitee’s report, ends with a “moralizing conclu sion.’.’ The name of the person report ing the violation is not made known to the violator unless the reporter should happen to speak to’ the cheater during the exam. The reporter appears before the coun cil previous to the violator's trial and explains the situation; the vio' lator then has his chance. The minimum penalty is an F in the course and suspension for one" quarter; the maximum is pernia nent suspension. Only !) Cases Cast Year Last year, only nine cases were heard by the council, two of which < were turned in by students. Both cases turned in by students were adjudged not guilty. Disposition of the other seven case3 was not cited. The weakest link in the honor code chain is the fraternity. “A natural feeling of brotherhood ex ists in them," the committee re- 1 ported, "and since they may take home exams they work them out together.” ! (Wednesday: Some observations on the honor syste;n, and a tew details about examinations under the system.) I .