Response to column’s call for open exams

In Jeremy Ruch’s column on Jan. 18 regarding take home exams I was quoted as saying “The cheating scandal of Chem 31 and the purported cheating that occurred during Dan Ariely’s Behavioral Econ take home final last year point to a student body not ready for the responsibility of being under an honor-only policy (for exams).”

Lost in this single quotation, however, were my broader feelings on the subject, which I would like to clarify. Unlike Davidson and UVA, which hold their honor codes to almost exclusive esteem, Duke operates under a tiered system in which the Community Standard is highly respected but ultimately, superseded by Duke University policy. As Duke students, we answer to this policy and the precedent that follows Conduct Board cases that adjudicate violations. While we aspire to the Community Standard, we are bound by Duke University policy.

Transitioning from the current legalism to a more honor-centered conduct policy is something that my organization, the Honor Council and I, support in principle. The power to elevate the Duke community is not buried in the minutiae of Duke policy, but within each of us. Furthermore, honor should govern not only areas explicitly addressed by administration in the policy handbook, but all facets of student life.

Any honor-centered system, however, must be founded upon mutual trust and constancy. Our professors, for the most part, do not coddle us academically with busy work and unnecessary assessments because they trust that we are here to learn and will take the necessary steps to do so. In a similar vein, before clambering for open exams, let us show administration—by respecting campus property, not abusing privileges such as STINF, etc.—that we are fully capable of policing ourselves.

Nick Valilis, Trinity ’12