ACE-UCLA
Freshman Survey, conducted in 1987 by the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program of the American Council on Education (ACE) and
the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Alexander W. Astin (Director),
Kenneth C. Green (Associate Director), with Ann Craig Hanson (now Associate
Dean at Middlebury College, Middlebury Vermont) as research associate on
questions concerning academic dishonesty.
This survey is a continuing project
and contains questions on academic honesty as only part of its purpose; it
issues reports at intervals. Its
survey of the (national) freshman entering class of Fall, 1987, showed that
about 30% reported they had "cheated on a test in [high] school" and
53% had "copied homework from another student."
Barnard,
Frederick A. P., Letters on college
government and the evils inseparable from the American college system in its
present form.
New York, D. Appleton & Co, 1855.
Board
of Curators of the University of Missouri v Horowitz
[435 U.S. 78, 98 S Ct 948 (1978)]
Supreme court basic case. "A school is an academic institution,
not a courtroom or administrative hearing room." --- Rehnquist.
Baldwin
et al v Dartmouth College. A brief summary of this case through January
4, 1989 may be found in The Wall Street Journal, January 5, 1989, p.
B4: Report of the New Hampshire
Superior court ruling that Christopher Baldwin and John H. Sutter should be
reinstated as students at Dartmouth College after having been suspended in March,
1988 for allegedly harassing Professor William S. Cole. The judge, Bruce Mohl, found that one member
(Professor Lavalley) of the panel convened by Dartmouth to hear the disciplinary
case was prejudiced, in that he had publicly accused the two students and
others of the very offenses ("racism," etc.) he later decided they
had committed. The judge returned the
case to Dartmouth for a rehearing. He
did not say they "had a right to have a lawyer" at such a hearing, or
a "right to cross-examine," only that they had a right to a fair
hearing before unprejudiced judges.
The background is described in The Chronicle of Higher Education,
April 6, 1988, p.A27, and in The Dartmouth Review, February 24, 1988,
p. 4, and March 2, 1988, pp 3, 7.
Bowers,
William J., Student dishonesty and its control in college. Cooperative Research Project No. OE 1672 of
the Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, New York 10027, NY,
Dec. 1964).
A wide and representative survey of
Deans, student advisors and student leaders, asking about the frequency and the
concomitants of undergraduate cheating and plagiarism. It seems to be the only survey of its scope,
but may be superseded in part by the reports emerging from the ACE-UCLA
Freshman Survey.
Campbell,
William Giles, A Comparative investigation of the behavior of students under
an honor system and a proctor system in the same university. Los Angeles 1935, University of Southern
California Press.
Chronicle
of Higher Education (9 Feb 1981): The University of Maryland has 100 cases per
year, with 20 suspensions. Article
cites (p70) Campus Shock by Lansing Lamont (Dutton, 1979) and (p 69,70)
Arthur Levine, When Dreams and Heroes Died, 1980 LA 229. L42
Published by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Clayton
v Trustees of Princeton University [519 F. Supp. 802 (D.N.J.)1981)].
(For
popular accounts of the Clayton and Napolitano cases, see the New York Times
articles of May 17, May 25, June 3, and June 10, 1982; June 5, 1983; and May 7,
1985; and the Chronicle of Higher Education of October 20, 1982 and May
15, 1985. The legal scholar may consult
the cited reports, or Jones and Semler [below], or the many cases cited in
Kibler et al [below].)
Here Clayton and Princeton both lost their
motions for summary judgment, the judge (Ackerman, as below) saying that
Clayton had a right in principle to claim tort under public law, but that
Princeton did have the right in principle to suspend him (for one year, in
fact) under its own rules, if it did it properly.
Clayton
v Trustees of Princeton University [608 F.Supp.
413 (D.C.N.J. 1985)].
Here, Clayton lost his suit on the
merits. Judge Ackerman.
Goldsen,
Rose K. et al, What college students think,
Princeton, Van Nostrand 1960.
Hetherington,
E.M. & Feldman, S.E., College cheating as a function of subject and
situational variables. Journal
of Educational Psychology, vol 55 (1964) p.212-218.
Concomitants of cheating behavior are
certain character traits such as "low self-sufficiency," "low
exertion of effort," etc., but overriding all is the situation. If the situation conduces to cheating,
cheating will rise.
Holmes
Grace W. (Ed.), Law and discipline on campus. Ann Arbor, Institute of Continuing Legal
Education 1971.
Kibler,
W.L., Nuss, E.M., Paterson, B.G., and Pavela, G., Academic Integrity and
Student Development.
College Administration Publications, Inc., 1988 (the Higher education
administration series), P.O. Box 8492, Asheville, NC 28814.
This book comes close to the subject
matter of the present volume, and contains a particularly detailed chapter on
recent legal cases (such as Napolitano, Clayton and Jaska), with extensive
legal bibliography. Its chapters are
written by different authors, and some are more interesting than others. The practical suggestions for reducing
cheating in actual classroom and examination settings are excellent; the model
honor code and legal system differs substantially from the rather simpler and
less sentimental system advocated in the present book. The general bibliography contains many
references to articles in popular and quasi-popular journals, along with the
professional literature in educational journals.
Jaska
v University of Michigan [597 F. Supp. 1245 (E.D. Mich 1984)]
Jones,
Thomas N. and Semler, Darel P., eds, School Law Update 1986,
Publications of the National Organization on Legal Problems of Education,
Topeka, Kansas 66614.
See p 32-46 for chapter called Plagiarism
and Cheating, by Ralph D. Mawdsley and Steve Permuth. It contains a comprehensive review of the
state of the law, including Clayton, Napolitano, Horowitz,
Jaska, Mary M., and others.
Knowlton,
J. & Hamerlynck, L., Perception of deviant behavior: A study of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.71
(1967), p. 214-217.
In this survey 81% admitted "having cheated" at some time in
college, and 46% in the previous semester.
The general opinion among the students surveyed was that about 40% of
their colleagues were "regular cheaters."
Mary
M. v Clark [473 NYS 2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)]: "student welfare...best served...[in a
] nonadversarial setting..."
Melendez,
Brian, Honor Code Study, (vol 1, Report;
vol 2, Case Studies; vol 3, Survey Results), Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University 1985.
May be obtained from the office of the
Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University. A study conducted by Harvard to see how
honor systems work in other colleges, with a view to helping Harvard to decide
whether to institute one.
Milton,
Ohmer, with Howard R. Pollio, and James A. Eison, Making Sense of College
Grades, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass 1986.
Main thesis: Undergraduate grades do not measure anything useful, e.g. they are not predictors of success in later life, including the professions. They are statistically uncertain, they generate poor attitudes towards education, they encourage the learning of the wrong things, they make enemies of students and their mentors, and incidentally, they encourage cheating. Survey data.
Napolitano
v Princeton University Trustees [453 A.2d 279 (N.J.Super.Ch. 1982)]. Judge Dreier decision.
Napolitano
v Princeton University Trustees [453 A.2d 263
(N.J.Super.A.D. 1982]
Judge Matthews (for a three-man court)
affirms Dreier's decision, especially noting that while most Princeton
cases of this sort do not eventuate in penalties this severe, there was
precedent for this one, and not all penalties have to be comparable to be just.
Princeton
University, Rights, Rules, Responsibilities: 1986 Edition.
Along with the Wesleyan handbook
[below], this volume describes an honor code and court system typical of
traditional private universities. It
also contains an excellent discussion of plagiarism in scholarly work.
Raimi,
Ralph A. et al, University of Rochester Senate Report of the
Subcommittee on Academic Honesty, May, 1965;
accompanied by On Academic Honesty at the University of Rochester, A
Paper in Support of the Report of the Subcommittee.
Raimi,
Ralph A., Cheating in College. Harpers Magazine, May, 1966
Raimi,
Ralph A., Examinations and Grades in College. AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1967.
Steininger,
M., Johnson, R.E., & Kirts, D.K., Cheating
on college examinations as a function of situationally aroused anxiety and
hostility. Journal
of Educational Psychology, vol.55 (1964), p.317-324.
(Perceived) bad teaching, unfair
examinations, etc. account for a great amount of cheating behavior. Students who feel justified cheat more.
Thornton,
William, Honour System at the University of Virginia,
Sewanee Review. 15:41-57, March, 1907 (cited in Campbell, 1935)
Truesdell,
Clifford, An Idiot's fugitive essays on science,
NY Springer, 1984. "...only a
social system that forbids rewards of any kind for any individual could root
out corruption." --p129
Wesleyan
University, The Blue Book. Middletown, Connecticut, 1986-87 (but
revised periodically). Pages 79-87
describe the Wesleyan honor system, and contain a definition of plagiarism
taken from Martin, et al, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, 3rd Ed.,
N.Y. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
This treatment is typical of such handbook treatments of the honesty
problem and its control in private colleges.
Wise,
Charles R., Clients evaluate authority: the view from the other side. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications
1976.