The opinions presented here are those of the author and are not representative of the Honor and Discipline Committee nor the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity. This piece points out systemic issues with the current honor system, not procedural failures in specific cases. The following views do not constitute grounds for appealing the outcome of a case.
The Honor and Discipline Committee, which hears cases of alleged academic and severe social misconduct, has recently been a popular subject in the Record, and deservedly so. A Record investigation from the fall revealed that the committee used incorrect voting procedures for over a year. The Record’s fall approval ratings survey reflected students’ growing dissatisfaction with the committee.
As the committee’s longest-serving current member, I believe that the issues of this year have largely resulted not from any failure of specific individuals on the committee, but rather the inefficacy of the current system. Our honor system as it stands today — a combination of the Honor Code and the enforcement by the committee — is dysfunctional and unsustainable. I urge the College to recognize the severity and urgency of the situation and impose radical changes to the honor system.
A (Re-)Introduction to the Honor Code
The current version of the Honor Code, adopted in 1971, states: “As an institution fundamentally concerned with the free exchange of ideas, Williams College has always depended on the academic integrity of each of its members. In the spirit of this free exchange, the students and faculty of Williams recognize the necessity and accept the responsibility for academic honesty.” The code tasks the “Student Honor Committee,” a precursor to today’s Honor and Discipline Committee, with hearing cases concerning alleged violations of this agreement. Today, the Honor and Discipline Committee is made up of eight voting students members, a faculty co-chair, seven non-voting faculty members, and a representative from the dean’s office — a role currently held by the Senior Associate Dean of Students — sitting in an advising role.
If we, as students, recognize the “necessity […] for academic honesty,” we must commit to a functional honor system to hold our peers accountable for violating the Honor Code. In theory, through this self-governance, we can uphold a culture of academic honesty, enabling the “free exchange of ideas” at the core of our Williams education.
In practice, however, an outdated honor code, a lack of buy-in from faculty and students alike, poor administrative oversight, and an uneven distribution of labor on the committee hinder our honor system from serving its core purpose. These interconnected issues run so deep that the honor system is on the verge of collapse, and what remains of a culture of academic honesty at the College is in jeopardy. In order to fulfill its stated mission, the honor system needs sweeping reform.
There is no standardized honor code
Many of the deeply-rooted issues with the honor system stem from the Honor Code itself. For starters, there is no agreed-upon, standardized version of the Honor Code. The version on the dean’s office’s website differs substantially from the one students sign at the beginning of each year. In both versions, the primary rule is to “respect and acknowledge the research and ideas of others” in accordance with the rules specified by their instructors, but the guidelines that students sign as part of the Honor Code are outdated and narrow in scope.
Most classes at the College also have an honor code statement on their syllabus, so students are expected to follow four (plus or minus) distinct statements of the Honor Code each semester. While it is natural for the definition of academic integrity to vary across disciplines — an AI policy in a 400-level computer science course should look quite different from one for a 100-level English course — having no standardization in the Honor Code leaves room for misunderstanding and differences of interpretation, especially since Williams students come from a wide range of academic backgrounds.
A clearly-defined, up-to-date, and easily-accessible general honor code that applies to all coursework is necessary, especially as many syllabi lean upon it, simply stating that “the Honor Code applies to all work in this class.” Clarifying and modernizing the Honor Code is a critical first step in attempting to improve the honor system.
The procedures of the Honor and Discipline Committee are outdated
The generalized Honor Code stipulates the committee’s makeup and procedures in ways that are limiting and outdated to the point of creating dysfunction on the committee. For example, the Honor Code states that the committee’s voting membership consists of eight students and that three-quarters of them must be in attendance to hear a case. It seems like it was easier to assemble a quorum in 1971 than it is today.
Now, most committee members’ time is split between multiple extracurriculars, making it exceedingly difficult to find times when six students, the faculty chair of the committee, and the student(s) and faculty involved in a case are all available. We struggle the most with scheduling hearings at the end of semesters, when people are busiest and the committee’s caseload is highest. We are occasionally forced to push hearings until after the registrar’s office pass/fail deadline. After that point, students given grade-reducing sanctions are unable to designate a course as pass/fail.
There are multiple simple solutions to this issue, but all are nearly impossible to implement in accordance with the rules laid out in the current Honor Code. For example, the total number of student committee members could theoretically be increased to 10, so a smaller proportion of the membership would be sufficient to constitute a quorum. Such a change, however, would involve changing the language of the Honor Code itself, which can only be made by a referendum of the student body, with a voter turnout above 66 percent and more than two-thirds of those voting in favor of the change.
While gathering two-thirds of the student body to vote may have been simpler in 1971, it would be near impossible today, given that turnout in annual student elections has declined to typically 25-35 percent, of which approximately 15 percent generally abstain from Honor and Discipline Committee elections. It is clear that the administration needs to take top-down action to change the Honor Code.
The current election system compromises institutional memory
Although democratic, the committee’s election process, conducted by the Student-Faculty Committee Board (formerly known as TABLE), jeopardizes year-to-year continuity in the committee’s membership. We have already experienced the consequences: In my sophomore year, I was the only person re-elected to serve on the committee. I took a temporary leave from the committee for mental health reasons, leaving the Senior Associate Dean of Students as the only source of continuity on the committee. As a result, the standard for voting then shifted from a three-quarters to a simple majority. If no experienced members are re-elected, there are insufficient guardrails to ensure a thorough training, adherence to procedure, and respect for recent precedent.
The administration plays an annual game of roulette, betting that both incumbent student co-chairs will be re-elected to the committee. These odds, however, are not particularly high. In the past, when an incumbent chair has not been re-elected, the committee has had to hope that at least one other re-elected member will be willing, qualified, and trained to serve in that role. In the past, that has not happened, and it is possible that neither incumbent co-chair will be elected in the future. Without experienced student co-chairs, the committee cannot function according to its own bylaws.
Faculty buy-in is inconsistent
Another flaw in the current honor system lies in the inequities associated with uneven faculty buy-in. The system’s functioning depends on an arrangement that divides responsibilities for the Honor Code’s enforcement between students and faculty: Faculty — and students, though rarely in practice — are required to report suspected violations to the committee, and the students on the committee, in turn, are to enforce the Honor Code among their peers by passing a finding of responsibility and determining the appropriate sanction. This is meant to take the burden of finding responsibility away from individual professors, making enforcement and sanctions more consistent across cases.
This system, however, breaks down when faculty do not report cases to the committee, which can happen for a variety of reasons. Some faculty have a pedagogical opposition to putting students through the hearing process, and others consider the process of bringing a case too time-intensive and the punishments too lenient to be worthwhile. Many faculty are also dissuaded due to the high standard of evidence required to convince the committee that a student is guilty, especially in cases involving suspected AI use. There are additional incentives for untenured faculty not to bring cases: Students found responsible for violating the Honor Code are still encouraged to submit Student Course Survey (SCS) forms, which can drag down course evaluation scores and harm professors’ chances of getting tenure. When professors refuse to take part in this process — often for understandable reasons — inequities are introduced into the system, undermining a major element of the committee’s purpose: ensuring fairness in the enforcement of the Honor Code.
Burdens on committee members are poorly distributed
The eight faculty who are appointed to serve on the Honor and Discipline Committee do not vote on cases, leaving some faculty on the committee feeling as though their time and energy are unvalued, and there is no real incentive to attend.
On the other side of the coin, the burden of serving on the Honor and Discipline Committee for students, particularly the student co-chairs, is too great for an uncompensated position. General student members can expect to devote about 50 hours a year to hearings, which equates to $750 annually if we were paid minimum wage. The time commitment for the student co-chairs is even greater. We meet with all accused students privately prior to their hearing to prepare them. These meetings are often stressful and emotional, and we are not trained counselors.
During exam periods, co-chairs feel the additional pressure to respond to accused students quickly to alleviate their compounding stress amid exams. They are expected to summon the patience and supportive energy necessary for pre-hearing meetings while under academic stress themselves.
In addition, in the last few years, chairs have devoted a significant amount of time scrambling to devise short-term solutions for problems that have arisen because of the current system. These solutions have been more time consuming than any other responsibility of the role.
Both student co-chairs have had to step away from the committee for a period to adequately prioritize their mental health and academics. This is unsustainable, especially for an uncompensated position. If no elected student is willing to chair, there is no plan B. The committee would not be able to run in accordance with the Honor Code.
The administration is not blind to these problems. Failures of the current system have finally stirred up the beginnings of action: Last year, President Maud S. Mandel formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity, of which I am a member, to investigate issues with the honor system. The committee has formally identified many of the problems listed above and plans to draft a report recommending changes by late spring.
I say “beginnings” of action because, so far, nothing has changed. I am familiar with the pace of change at the institutional level, and I understand the desire not to rush to, say, create a new honor code. Such an endeavor would require thought and care, but the College nevertheless cannot delay. The Record-front-page failures of the honor system are just the most noticeable symptoms of serious dysfunction. Tasking students to slap band-aids on these crises as they arise is as ineffective as it is inefficient. Simply put, the system is failing to serve the ideals laid out in the Honor Code. To effectively serve the College community, the honor system needs systemic change.
While I will likely graduate before any changes that the Ad Hoc committee recommends see the light of day, I hope the College will seize the unique opportunity to override outdated policies and reimagine this system completely. To do so, it will have to ask itself tough questions (and answer them with urgency): What does academic integrity mean in this day and age? How can we nurture a culture of academic integrity within the College community? How should we prevent and punish dishonesty? Answering these questions is not something I — or any one person — can or should do. A revitalized honor system must reflect the state and desires of the College community as it exists today, not 1971.
Sam Sidders ’25 is a geosciences and classics double-major from Charlottesville, Va.
