Editorial:Cheating on the rise

The recent revelation that undergraduate cases of cheating increased dramatically last semester says, all at once, both very little and a whole lot.

The Undergraduate Judicial Board heard 26 cases of academic dishonesty last semester, most of them related to final exams. This is an increase from 15 to 20 cases per semester in recent years. But it is an increase from only 12 cases during the entire 1999-2000 academic year, when much of the current discussion about honor and integrity in academics became prominent.

That discussion has included numerous forums, information sessions and campus surveys, finally resulting in a "new" honor code known as the Duke Community Standard; the standard is largely the same as the current code and will take effect in the fall semester.

Meanwhile, the reality after years of promoting academic integrity is more cases, either because students are cheating more or because professors are more aware of what constitutes plagiarism, reporting cases that in the past might have slipped by. A 1999 survey of University students and faculty members found that 72 percent of professors report a "low" or "very low" understanding of the student judicial code. If that has changed over the last three years because of greater discussion or the work of the Academic Integrity Council-and future surveys will hopefully investigate that-then the administration can consider its efforts at least a partial success.

Then again, students are still cheating. The same 1999 survey found that half of students admitted to some form of academic dishonesty, and judicial affairs administrators have said that claims of ignorance are as prevalent now as ever. More education could certainly help, and administrators should take another look at how they teach students to avoid plagiarism. Ultimately, the goal of such education should be a culture change-students should ideally live and work in an environment where everyone knows what cheating is and professors have the tools to find and punish those who do cheat. In this sense-laying out expectations and educating students-an honor code or community standard can be very useful.

What administrators should not do is think they will be able to use the new Duke Community Standard to create an abstract sense of trust or honor among students. Such personal traits are certainly worthy, but they do not come from having all students-whether they are honorable or not-signing a piece of paper or reading a sign on a wall. Duke students are exceptionally bright, but there is little to suggest they are exceptionally trustworthy or more honorable than anyone else. The University should hold steady to its current course of educating faculty members and students about the importance of academic integrity.