To the Editor:

I recently discovered a student had cheated on a quiz. This was particularly galling since it happened in a course on ethics. The student copied from the person sitting next to him, who got the first three questions wrong. When confronted, he confessed, took full responsibility, and accepted the consequence of failure in the course as stipulated on the syllabus.

I was left feeling like a failure and wondering how this could have happened. I explained the situation to my students and asked them to apply concepts they had learned to the subject. We first established the illegality of cheating; a detailed prohibition against all forms of cheating is laid out in the student handbook. We then moved on to ethics.

Quite readily, students volunteered that from a Kantian position, cheating would be wrong since one may not use a person simply as a means to an end, nor would cheating meet the “categorical imperative”—i.e., cheating is not an act we would wish to become “universal.” Similarly, they reasoned, cheating would be unacceptable from a Utilitarian perspective since the happiness of many others is diminished by the action, even in a course like mine, where grading is not on a curve. Others speculated on the harm that might come to many if a student gained credentials without actually learning the necessary material, and then went on to build bridges that fell or performed botched surgeries.

We then discussed the effects of cheating on the professor-student relationship. Students saw analogies with adultery and reasoned that in both cases, the acts involved “promise-breaking” and “deception.” We considered the costs should our relationship be transformed by cheating from one based on trust to one based on suspicion.

I was reassured by their responses—until we considered the moral responsibility of those who witness cheating. Here we bumped into a powerful countervailing cultural proscription against “tattling” or “ratting.” So powerful is this norm that most said they would not report cheating, even though they had just explained why cheating was immoral and hurt them in multiple ways.

What explains this inclination to stand by in the face of wrong-doing? One student speculated that he would lose social standing with his friends, another thought it had to do with protecting one’s own—students sticking together. But cheaters are not engaging in social solidarity when they cheat and do not deserve such protection. Only cheaters and other wrong-doers benefit from a culture that discourages reporting immoral acts.

Now that RPI is one of the “new Ivies,” it is time to adopt an honor code. Honor codes generally involve unsupervised exams, a student-run judicial process, and a written affirmation on assignments and exams that students have completed their work honestly. Some codes also oblige students to report any cheating they observe. This is the type of code we need.

Not only would the adoption of such a code benefit students while at RPI, but also spending four years in an environment where it is the norm to report wrongdoing would provide an essential training ground for their professional lives where they may encounter unethical behavior and be duty-bound to “whistle blow.” It is perhaps for this very reason that honor codes have been adopted by so many technical institutes. At Rensselaer, our slogan is “Why not Change the World?” We expect our faculty, students, and alumni to be involved in weighty enterprises which may well have lasting effects on populations and environments. Integrity is essential.

Given the power of early socialization against tattling, the relative ease of looking the other way, and the retribution often experienced by “whistle blowers,” it evidently requires courage to report wrongdoing. By providing an environment where ethical behavior is expected and everyone accepts responsibility to uphold these standards, Rensselaer would not only treat students with the dignity they deserve but would produce a cadre of professionals who would hold themselves and their colleagues to high moral standards and in so doing, protect the public good.

Linda Layne

STSS Professor