2008 Woodie Awards
The choice to cheat: Facing the consequences
Carol Shiner Wilson, Dean of Academic Life
Issue date: 9/23/04 Section: Focus
About three years ago, the College was invited to subscribe to a plagiarism-detection website called TurnItIn.com. When we learned that every student in a class would have to submit an electronic copy of his or her paper for comparison to a national database, we called an immediate halt to consideration of the program. Such tactics, we felt, treated every student like a potential plagiarist. Such thinking and acting were contrary to the ethos of trust at the College. While some students will plagiarize -- or in other ways violate the Academic Behavior Code by cheating or colluding -- the vast majority of students merit the trust the College Community places in them.
At one point, the College had an Honor Code such as those at Bryn Mawr College and West Point. The system was student-run. Students were expected to adhere to academic integrity themselves and were expected to confront violators, who were then supposed to self-report to the Student Court. The Court was empowered to impose penalties such as failure in a course and suspension.
In an article in the Sept. 13, 1973 issue of The Muhlenberg Weekly, Student Chief Justice Jeff Brand echoed the sentiment of students and faculty alike, saying that the Honor Code was not working, in part because of the reluctance of students to confront or report other students. Faculty, moreover, had concerns about the rigor of the Court.
Over the next few years, faculty and students worked together to develop the Academic Behavior Code, whereby the very first discussion in a suspected violation would be between the faculty member and student. The first allegation is still considered a learning opportunity, and a hearing -- which is only at the request of the student -- is rare. However, a second allegation mandates a hearing, and the penalty can be as serious as suspension or expulsion.
The most recent version of the Academic Behavior Code was passed by the faculty in March of 2004. A breach of the Code is still understood to be a breach of trust between student and faculty member, between student and classmates and between student and the rest of the College Community.
At one point, the College had an Honor Code such as those at Bryn Mawr College and West Point. The system was student-run. Students were expected to adhere to academic integrity themselves and were expected to confront violators, who were then supposed to self-report to the Student Court. The Court was empowered to impose penalties such as failure in a course and suspension.
In an article in the Sept. 13, 1973 issue of The Muhlenberg Weekly, Student Chief Justice Jeff Brand echoed the sentiment of students and faculty alike, saying that the Honor Code was not working, in part because of the reluctance of students to confront or report other students. Faculty, moreover, had concerns about the rigor of the Court.
Over the next few years, faculty and students worked together to develop the Academic Behavior Code, whereby the very first discussion in a suspected violation would be between the faculty member and student. The first allegation is still considered a learning opportunity, and a hearing -- which is only at the request of the student -- is rare. However, a second allegation mandates a hearing, and the penalty can be as serious as suspension or expulsion.
The most recent version of the Academic Behavior Code was passed by the faculty in March of 2004. A breach of the Code is still understood to be a breach of trust between student and faculty member, between student and classmates and between student and the rest of the College Community.