Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 23, 1952)
WHAT ABOUT AN HONOR CODE AT OREGON? (lid. Note: The other night we brought together four per sons to talk uImiiiI tlie honor eoile—lean Gould, senior In huslness, Trunk Neither, grail Uttte In polltlenl seienee, unit llenry Ambers unit Merv Humpton, seniors In political science. We also asked Mor ton Kroll, Instructor In politi cal seienee, to moderate the discussion. Miss tiould and Hampton represent the "pro” side; Neu ber and Ambers, the "con.” The “pro”, representatives are botlt members of the code com mittee and Miss Gould studied for a year under the Stanford honor system. Ncubcr anti Am bers take the “con” stand. To Develop A Mature Attitude ItKOI.I.: VVhiit w<-'re going to do is present the basic arguments foi and against and have rebut tals and general discussion. OO( U): Our purpose in formu lating tins plan wus to develop a more mature attitude toward the acquisition of knowledge and to foster a genuine pride in yi< academic excellence of the school. 15;, lliis we demonstrate' our be lief that the students of the Inl vrrslt.v of Oregon do have u bas ically good character mill that they can, when given opportunity, help themselves to stop the cheat ing. Our ideal is not to stop it, but we hope to lessen it. Wouldn't Be Fair We have reasons for wanting it to tie instituted ull over the uni versity at one time. It wouldn't be fair to think that a person could go Into an 8 o'clock class and have the honor system in op eration there and have the tradi tion instilled in him to the point that he would believe in the code well enough to practice it prop erly. and then go into a 9 o'clock and take a test where the honor code wasn't being used and where there was cheating. A person either lias a feeding of a spirit and a tradition of honor and It’s either fostered In him or isn't. We don't feel that It can lie cut off at 8:50 a.m. and start ed at any time again later. People who have gone to a School and had that spirit Instilled in them are much less apt to cheat. 1 honestly believe that they probably don't if brought up that way, more than those who have been under a system where cheat ing Is the thing to do. It's basically a belief that the students when given a chance can develop this attitude and use the code wisely. KKOLL.: In other words, you feel that the honor code should he adopted as a whole rather than piece meal. Change Proposers Must Give Proof NEl'BEli: I’m quite pleased to see Miss Gould assume the neces sity for defense of the plan be cause it has always been my feeling that the proponents of chnnge have the burden upon their side. That they are the ones who have to justify what they , propose doing. I start from the supposition that we have a system which is working fairly well and before a change is to come we must have ► a rather concrete demonstration that the change will be better. Haven't Proved Case It's impossible to accept the ' thesis that tomorrow must be better because it could not be ‘ worse. Therefore I feel that it is the responsibility of the honor Both Sides Agree 'Honor' Is Good, But Differ on Method and Degree code people to prove their case. And I feel that they have not done so in the past, at least not to my satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of many others. The opponents of the honor rode system are not against hon or. They are not against this Ideal dream of a situation in whleh men will police themselves and there will l»e no need for men In blue suits to run uround und knock them over the head. It Is a beautiful dream that some day men can watch out for themselves, that some day they can be trusted in ull situations. Not all men can be trusted, and not all men, even the best, can be trusted in any situation. Man Good or Evil? It comra down to the theory of human nature that says that man is not good or evil. Man is good or evil according to circumstances under which he is operating. It is necessary not only to give chances for people to manifest the better side of their c haracter, but also to put limits upon mani festations of the worst in human nature ? The honor code proponents have shown some unwillingness or inability to see the point of their opponents. The characteris tic argument Is to say If this Is so then this Is so and this fol lows, and then to forget about the first its entirely. If the honor code will eliminate cheating and raise academic standards, would you be for it? There has been no demonstra tion that it will do either. I am still waiting for that demonstra tion. There has been a tendency to confuse propaganda, or the pre sentation of one side in order to get definite' judgment, with edu cation. The honor code committee has a responsibility to point out not only the possibilities for success but also the danger spots and the possibilities of failure. Avoid Vexing Questions The group has shown a great willingness to avoid vexing ques tions. They have been tempted to go nhead on faith and say the system must work so it will work, without meeting some awfully troublesome problems. There has been a tendency to set up sample arguments, which in many cases have been easy to refute and which have been re futed or passed over. I don't think that the arguments attributed to the opposition have done the op position entire justice. There Is a tendency toward legalism, toward the theory that a system is what is needed. All we need to do is set up a law and set up some legal framework and the thing will work. You have to pay some attention to the concrete facts of existence. You can't establish a panacea by legislating a utopia that has also a tendency to say that if anyone does not go along, that doesn’t really matter. He can be bypass ed. I read here from possible ar gument number six of the code: “If the students really want and ask for an honor code it is believed that the large majority of the professors will cooperate in supporting the experiment. Ac tually, it really doesn’t matteiv The students can bypass the in structor.” I don’t like the sound of by passing the instructor. I still think that is a matter of individ ual decision on the part of the in structor as to how he will run his class. I do not think that extra legal enforcement measures or duplica tion of enforcement measures in a class Is desirable. The argument for totality says that it is unfair. I’m unable to understand why it is unfair to have the honor system in certain circumstances and not in others. If the honor code Is so good why not let the people become convinced instead of passing a i- - ■ What They Say... PRO“An Honor code will decrease cheating, raise the academic level of the Univer sity, give the students a great amount of pride in their uni versity and make them better citizens.” CON:“If the honor code is so good why not let the people become convinced instead of passing a law to coerce the minority. Why not let instruc tors adopt the honor system on their own convictions that it Is good?” law to coerce the minority? Why not let instructors adopt the hon or code system on their own con viction that It is good when they will? Taking Positive, Not Negative HAMPTON: Mr. Neuber's atti tude is a very conservative one, and one we've never l5een able to fit into our minds. We're looking at the code from a very positive standpoint and a progressive viewpoint. We believe it a very important step in the right direction and that its bene fits will be very measurable if given the proper time and if the proper attitude is allowed to build itself up in the minds of the stu dents and the faculty. We’ve proposed a positive rath er than a negative program; one which we believe is preventive rather than punitive. We’re not interested in bringing students up to the honor court and seeing that they’re expelled or seing that they’re given some sort of a pun ishment. What we’re mainly In terested in is installing an honor code and decreasing, in large measure, the amount of cheating. Mr. Ncuber spoke of the exist ing situation, the status quo, which he's in favor of as being all right. I believe that the survey taken by the discipline committee would refute that statement. Forty-seven per cent of the stu dents polled have cheated at one time or another. That's a very sizeable figure and to us it’s im portant. It demonstrated very definitely the need for some cor rection. Will Decrease Cheating We believe an honor code will decrease cheating, raise the aca demic level of the University, give students a great amount of pride in their school and make them better citizens when they have to face the life of a graduate. Cheating's Matter Of Motivation • AMBERS: A couple of basic fallacies exist. One of them is that of argument number eight: "Natural or habitual cheaters would tend to make efforts to beat the system.” That would naturally assume that there are some that can be classified as natural or habitual cheaters and I wouldn’t know how anyone would go about clas sifying them as such. It is largely a matter of moti vation, this business of cheating. It all depends on what the stu dent has to win or lose. Good Students Cheat Cheating v/ill be done by both borderline eases and by people who have a large motivation for honor societies and so forth. Somebody who really wants Phi Beta Kappa would, if necessary, cheat to get it. Another assumption that I would like to re-emphasize is the idea of the instructor. I do not think that an honor system will work in a university where the objective testing meth od is used as largely as here. It does work at Stanford but it has worked there under a different type of program. I don’t mean because it's a private type of in stitution and the students have to pay large sums of money to go there, but because the whole uni versity is oriented differently. The idea there is almost like that of professors here who use the open book examination—the idea that the test is built around is to keep the students so busy they will not have time to cheat. Can't Observe Going along with that, it does not give them a chance to ob serve anyone else’s cheating. Out of all the cases last year at Stan ford only nine of them were re ported. Eecause the faculty have absenced themselves from the classroom during the examination in all departments except lan guage (where they figure an es say type test will not work) there were only seven cases of cheating in the whole school reported by the faculty and only two by stu dents. Where the honor system is used the faculty are not normally present in the classroom and the two that were sent up to the stu dent court by the faculty were later suspended. The two report ed by the student body were ex onerated. Another criticism is the idea that the student will automatical ly stop cheating when he hears a pencil tapping. That's fine, but when does the peneil start tapping when the whole exam is designed to keep the student so busy he does not have time to cheat and naturally the other students will not have time to stop him? When will the pencil start tap ping, before the cheating is ac complished or after it ? Two football players were sus pended from the University of Florida where an honor code is practiced and also OSC used it for a period of time and the student body, not the faculty, voted it out because it didn't work. The OSC system is pretty much like the system here only the exams are probably tougher. KROLL: We now have the basic arguments and rebuttals presented. A good deal of the dis cussion has centered about the element of cheating in the honor system and I wonder whether all of you consider cheating the most important reason for the adop tion of an honor code and whether there are some other elements which don't enter in which upon further analysis might not be as important in a pro or con argu ment? HAMPTON: Very definitely. We believe this is one of the biggest steps we eould take in the advancement of student gov ernment. We would 1m- giving aeademie achievement to the stu dents. It would be theirs to watch and theirs to safeguard. Ey an increase in their respon sibility it would tend to increase the maturity and intelligence of the average student. I’d like to point out a mistake in Mr. Neuber’s argument. He seems to be a bit bitter about the statement in the report that the instructor can be bypassed anyway. That was unfortunate. It was not in the report that was accepted by the senate. Faculty Important We strongly take into consider ation the part that the faculty must play. This honor system cannot go into effect without the cooperation of the faculty. NEUBER: I’m pleased to find the committee admitting that they can make mistakes. How ever, why is student government itself good? Is student govern ment necessarily always good or is good government good, not necessarily student government? HAMPTON’: Government is a necessity. I don’t see how we'Te going to get along without it un less we're advocating anarchy. NEUBER: I don't think anyone is saying we're going to get along without it. I'm asking why the students exercising governmental powrer is set up as a good. Have you any proof that student gov ernment is the best government ? HAMPTON: What government would you advocate over student government ? Isn't it proper that the students run their own gov ernment ? NEUBER: I'm not advocating. I am questioning. I am wondering if perhaps in some situations it may be better for the faculty to have the final say. I think discipline is one of those areas. To Become Adults GOULD: One thing we come to the University for is to become adults. Nine-tenths of the people here come basically as children and become adults while they’re here. One phase of college that helps them to mature is in work ing with student government and in learning leadership and also in learning how to follow along with their fellow students if they happen to be followers. The faculty does have the final say in this. Any action taken by the student court can be criti cized and taken back for review by the court and in the long run it can be completely superceded by whatever the faculty says through its discipline committee. The students are just asking for a chance to prove that they can run their own affairs in this line as well as the lines that we previously have. AMBERS: Miss Gould says that faculty have the last say anyway and that after the stu dent court passes on the matter then it goes to the faculty for review ? GOULD: No, not necessarily. It can, though, if the faculty is critical of the action they still have the ultimate power. Same Treatment For Campus Stars AMBERS: One fact that we, as students, all realize is the ne cessity at time for various “stars” on the campus and it would bring; up a very interesting" point that if one of these “stars”' were brought up for cheating and suspended by the honor court, (Please turn to page six)