STUDENTS at the University were lucky enough to see an open honor trial for the first time in three years, and were especially lucky to see a trial in which the case was not open and shut. Of all the issues raised by this trial, from the nature of the "seriousness" of the offense to the actual guilt, the most important one is the clarity of policies on student interaction and discussion about assignments. If nothing else, one lesson must come out of this trial -- professors must give more information and specify whether student collaboration on particular assignments is in violation of the honor code.
In this case, third-year College students Lindsay McClung and Joe Schlingbaum were accused of cheating in a political theory class. Yesterday, they were found not guilty of violating the honor code by collaborating with each other on a series of homework assignments.
In an honor trial, jurors must find the accused guilty on three different criteria -- act, intent and seriousness. Both Schlingbaum and McClung admitted to having committed the act by openly saying that they collaborated on the homework assignments. The assignments in question totaled at most four percent of the entire course grade, which the jury believed was not serious enough to warrant conviction.
The case, however, most clearly shows the flaws of policies toward the notion of intent. Both students claimed that they would never have discussed the assignments with each other had they known that collaboration was not allowed within the class. Because Schlingbaum and McClung believed at the time that they did nothing wrong in consulting each other, they did not actively try to conceal the similarities in their respective papers.
Unfortunately, in most instances, students who must turn in their own individual work for a class receive at best shaky information regarding how much they can discuss with other students. While, according to the trial testimony of teaching assistant Sara Henary, Politics Prof. Stephen White, the professor of the political theory class in question, did discuss in a lecture that consulting others for the assignment was a violation of the honor code, White did not mention doing so in his interview with honor investigators. Schlingbaum and McClung disputed Henary's claim, and interpreted any prohibition to apply just to outside sources or people who had previous knowledge of the material.
The syllabus for the class (still taught by White) this semester was reasonably vague for the assignment, claiming that generally "you are to answer these questions [for the homework assignments] without anyone's help" without giving any information about discussion. Additionally, in bold letters, the syllabus states that "the honor code applies to these assignments," though specific parameters are still vague and general with regard to discussion. Yesterday's trial put into question the clarity of that standard, since Schlingbaum and McClung argued that they believed open discussion about the questions did not constitute brazenly helping each other on assignments, and thus did not violate the honor code.
If there is one lesson from this trial, it is that professors should be more explicit in explaining, in both their lectures as well as their syllabi, how much student discussion constitutes a case that they would refer to the Honor Committee. Professors such as White must add in their syllabus that any collaboration, even student discussion, could be considered by others to be a violation of the honor system. Yesterday's trial shows that general statements within the syllabus may not suffice -- discussions have the potential to be a gray area within the honor system. Otherwise, professors who do not want any collaboration on these assignments but fail to make that clear will have to continually deal with frivolous honor trials.
Additionally, professors must put their more explicit honor policy procedures at the forefront of their syllabi and lectures. The reference to homework assignments was located on page eight of 11 pages of White's syllabus, and, as previously stated, may or may not have been discussed once in class, according to Henary. While White did ask the class to read the syllabus as homework, all specifics concerning honor and assignments should have been placed more visibly towards the front of the syllabus. This not a problem unique to White's courses. Students have an obligation to understand professor policies, but professors should clarify what they want in order to make that possible.
Many professors require student participation for homework assignments and advocate teamwork in homework. Other professors prioritize the idea of individual student thought on student assignments. While both beliefs can be constructive and beneficial for the student learning process, for the sake of making the honor system work, it is up to professors to make sure that their way of teaching is well-defined and practiced.
Adam Silverberg's column usually appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asilverberg@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
