The Undergraduate Honor System
Introduction
At Princeton all written examinations are conducted under
the honor system. Its constitution is printed in full below.
A letter explaining the honor system is sent by the chair of
the Honor Committee to each newly admitted student, who then
signifies by signing the honor system statement that he or
she understands and will abide by the conditions under which
the honor system is conducted. Final entrance to the
University is contingent upon the committee's receipt of
this letter. Status as a student "in good standing'' and
graduation from the University are contingent upon continued
participation in the honor system. The Honor Committee
consists of three current class presidents, three past class
presidents, and three undergraduates selected by application
from the student body at large. Three additional
undergraduates are selected from the student body at large
to serve as alternates on the Honor Committee.
Under the honor system, the students assume full
responsibility for honesty in written examinations.
Examinations are not supervised. The instructor in charge
distributes the examination papers, waits for a short time
for any questions, and then leaves the room, returning at
the end of the stated period to collect the answer books. On
each examination paper, the student writes out and signs the
following statement: "I pledge my honor that I have not
violated the honor code during this examination.''
Every student acknowledges the obligation to report any
suspected violation of the honor code that he or she has
observed. It is the common understanding among Princeton
students that, where the honor system is concerned, an
individual's obligation to the undergraduate student body as
a whole transcends any reluctance to report another student.
Thus, under the honor system students have a twofold
obligation: individually, they must not violate the code,
and as a community, they are responsible to see that
suspected violations are reported.
Violations of the honor system are the concern of the
Undergraduate Honor Committee. When a report of a suspected
violation of the honor system is received, the Honor
Committee immediately conducts an investigation. If the
investigation indicates that it is warranted, the full Honor
Committee is convened and a confidential hearing is held. If
the student in question is acquitted, all records of the
hearing are destroyed. If a student is found guilty, the
committee recommends an appropriate penalty to the president
of the University. Normally, a student found guilty of
violating the honor code can expect to be suspended from the
University for one, two, or three years. A second offense
will result in expulsion.
Procedures during the course of an examination are
determined by the faculty member present. Students may not
leave the examination room without the specific permission
of the faculty member. Such permission must be granted
uniformly; that is, if one student is allowed to leave the
room, no other may be denied such permission upon request.
Students are advised to sit one seat apart from other
students, to refrain from bringing notes and books into the
examination room, and if possible, to avoid sitting near
those with whom they have studied. The faculty member, who
is present only briefly to answer questions and to pick up
the completed examinations, has the responsibility to make
sure the examinations are turned in by students at the
appropriate time.
Princeton's honor system was established by the
undergraduates in 1893 and has been in effect without
interruption since that time. It has been successful because
generations of undergraduates have respected it, and by
common agreement have given it highest place among their
obligations as Princeton students.
Current Procedure
Much of the internal organization and virtually all of
the operating procedures of the Honor Committee are
determined by the committee itself. The tone and style of
each year's committee may vary, but there is continuity in
procedure from year to year. Generally there are at least
three members on the committee who have served
previously.
A case would be conducted as follows:
A suspected violation of the honor system is brought to
the attention of the Honor Committee by a reporting witness.
The reporting witness is typically a faculty member, a
student, or the violator. The member of the committee
receiving the report calls the chair (the former sophomore
class president). On a rotating basis, two members of the
committee conduct a preliminary investigation of the
allegation. If the evidence warrants it, the chair sets a
time and place for a hearing. One investigator will serve as
a defense adviser to the student in question, and the other
will serve as clerk of the hearing in a nonvoting manner.
The two investigators and/or the chair inform the student in
question of the charge at least 24 hours before the hearing
and may also ask potential witnesses to appear at the
hearing. As much confidentiality as possible is maintained
during the investigation in order to protect the principals
from rumor.
Evidence for the hearing usually includes the
examination(s) in question and any other relevant material,
which is duplicated, if necessary, for use by the individual
members of the committee during the hearing. If a faculty
member reports the alleged violation, or if consultation
with the professor administering the examination or the
preceptor or section leader of the student in question seems
helpful, the committee may call that person or persons to
the actual hearing to discuss the facts as then known. The
committee may also have present, during the hearing, a
student or faculty member who is knowledgeable in the field
of the examination in question.
After a report of a suspected violation is received, the
chair normally consults with the Honor Committee's faculty
adviser (who is designated, with the advice and consent of
the Honor Committee, by the dean of the faculty) concerning
the general character of the suspected violation, the nature
of the investigation in progress, and any questions that may
arise during the course of the investigation. The chair may
also, if he or she deems it necessary, consult with the
faculty adviser during the course of the hearing. The chair
also informs an associate dean of undergraduate students of
the name of the person under investigation. The associate
dean of undergraduate students provides the chair and the
two investigators, prior to any scheduled hearing, whatever
information he or she determines is appropriate concerning
the student in question for consideration by the committee.
This might include any special or extraordinary
circumstances affecting the student. While an investigation
or hearing is underway, the notation "Status Under Review''
may, in situations where necessary, be added to the
transcript of the student in question.
In the hearing, witnesses provide information about the
possible violation that has been observed and are questioned
by the Committee. Next, the student in question is called
before the committee. A defense adviser, who is one of the
nonvoting committee members, is present throughout the
hearing on the behalf of the student in question. In
addition, the student in question is urged to choose a
defense advocate who will be present throughout the hearing.
Only a current undergraduate member of the University
community may serve as the defense advocate. Both the
defense adviser and defense advocate may speak on behalf of
the student in question and ask questions of all the
witnesses. Before the committee begins deliberations on
guilt or innocence, the defense advocate, defense adviser,
and the student inquestion will all have the option of
delivering a final defense summary to the committee. The
identities of the student in question, the reporting
witness, and any other witnesses are kept completely
confidential. This helps to insure that honor
code&endash;related cases will not lead to prejudice outside
the hearing room.
The principals and witnesses may be called for testimony
several times before the committee renders a judgment. The
committee deliberates in private and arrives at a decision
by individual vote. If the student is found to have
intentionally misled the committee during the course of the
hearing, the committee may take that fact into account in
reaching a conclusion and assigning a penalty. When a
decision is reached, the student in question is called and
informed of the judgment. Then the reporting witness is
informed of the judgment, thanked for the exercise of a
responsibility that is difficult but necessary, and
cautioned against discussion of the case. If the student in
question is acquitted, all written record of his or her
involvement in the case is destroyed, and the case is
reported to the president at the end of the term with
letters substituted for names. Copies of these records,
which are retained by the committee, aid future committees
by the precedents they contain, although for the most part
the committee is likely to consider each case as unique
rather than search for a decision in a similar case.
If a person is found guilty, he or she is informed of the
punishment, which is, at the committee's discretion, a one-,
two-, or three-year suspension, or in the case of a second
offense, permanent expulsion. The committee shall also have
recourse, in the presence of extenuating circumstances, to
probation up to four years, which becomes a part of the
student's permanent record. Only the president of the
University may review the final penalty. An appeal of a
decision of the Honor Committee should be directed to the
Office of the President. Such appeals can only be made on
the grounds of procedural unfairness or harmful bias.
Constitution of the Honor System
Adopted by the Undergraduates in 1893. Amended in
2000.
Article I
1. There shall be a committee consisting of nine full
members and three alternate members who shall represent the
student body and deal with all cases involving suspected
violations of the honor system.
2. The members of this committee shall be the presidents
of the first-year, sophomore, and junior classes, three
former class presidents, and three members to be appointed
by the committee from the student body at large. Three
additional undergraduates shall be chosen from this same
applicant pool to serve as alternates to the committee. They
shall be considered as full members of the committee but
shall participate and vote in hearings and deliberations
only if there would otherwise be an absence of a quorum. The
alternates shall not conduct investigations.
3. The president of the sophomore class shall normally
remain as a member until the end of his or her sophomore
year and shall automatically become the clerk of the
committee at the beginning of his or her junior year. In
case he or she is elected president of the junior class, the
Honor Committee shall appoint a student to fill the
resulting vacancy, subject to approval by the Undergraduate
Student Government. All senior members of the committee will
normally serve through their entire senior year.
4. The president of the junior class and the former
sophomore class president will normally serve until the end
of their junior year and will automatically become members
of the committee at the beginning of their senior year.
5. The former sophomore class president will serve as
chair of the committee in his or her senior year. In the
event that the former sophomore class president withdraws
from the University, or is otherwise unable to serve as
chair of the committee, the senior member of the committee
who was junior class president will serve as chair.
6. The newly elected sophomore and junior class
presidents will normally become members of the committee at
the beginning of the fall term following their election,
but, if needed, can serve on the committee immediately after
their election. The first-year class president will serve
immediately following his or her election.
7. Following spring elections, the Honor Committee will
solicit applications from the student body at large for the
remaining positions on the committee. Appointed members
shall serve one-year terms, but may seek reappointment
thereafter. Committee members seeking reappointment shall
not participate in the selection process. All appointments
are subject to approval by the Undergraduate Student
Government.
Article II
1. The committee may dismiss a member for neglect of
duty. A vote of nine of the ten other members would be
required for such a dismissal.
2. If any member shall for any reason become unable to
serve or be dismissed, an alternate shall be appointed by
the committee to replace the member. A new alternate shall
then be appointed by the Honor Committee subject to approval
by the Undergraduate Student Government.
3. If action of the committee becomes necessary before
the selection of this new alternate or before the fall
election of the first-year class president, the members of
the committee at that time shall constitute a temporary
committee for the particular case with the same regulations
of power, procedure, and penalties as adopted in this
constitution.
Article III
1. The committee shall have power to summon the student
or students in question, witness or witnesses, documents,
and articles of material evidence, and to seek to obtain any
information bearing on the accusation. The members of the
committee who participate in the hearing shall meet to
determine whether the student or students in question be
guilty or not guilty of violating the honor system. The
individuals who serve as procedural adviser and defense
advocate shall not be present. The clerk shall be present
but shall not vote.
2. Following the conviction of a student, the voting
members of the committee who determined guilt shall meet to
determine the penalty. A decision on the penalty shall
require a majority vote. Again, the clerk shall be present
but shall not vote. The convicted person or persons may not
attend this meeting. The committee shall recommend a penalty
to the president of the University. The penalty shall take
effect upon imposition by the president.
3. Under normal circumstances, individuals convicted of
cheating shall be subject to the following penalties: The
first offense will result in a penalty of suspension for one
year or, if perjury occurs, suspension for two or three
years. The second offense will result in expulsion from the
University. In the absence of perjury, the committee shall
also have recourse to suspension for two or three years. In
all cases, the committee may exercise the option of required
withdrawal. When there are extenuating circumstances, the
first offense may result in a penalty of probation, which
becomes a part of the student's permanent record until
graduation. Under this probation, a second violation of the
honor code will result in suspension or expulsion.
4. Under normal circumstances, when a violation requiring
suspension occurs during the fall term, the convicted person
or persons shall not be eligible to return until the
following fall term. When a violation requiring suspension
occurs during the spring term, the convicted person or
persons shall not be eligible to return until the following
spring term. If a senior is involved in a violation during
the spring term, the student's degree may be withheld until
the spring of the following year. Only the president of the
University may review the final penalty. An appeal of the
decision of the Honor Committee should be directed to the
Office of the President. Such appeals can only be made on
the grounds of procedural unfairness or harmful bias. The
penalty levied by the Honor Committee may not be increased
upon appeal.
5. Under extreme, exceptional circumstances, the
committee may allow a student to complete the term in which
the violation occurred and be removed from the University
for the following two semesters. In such cases the Honor
Committee would recommend that the student receive a failing
grade in the course in which the violation occurred.
Article IV
1. The place and time of all hearings shall be determined
by the chair of the committee.
2. The hearing shall be conducted in the following manner
with the chair presiding. The reporting witness will first
report his or her suspicion to the committee. Additional
witnesses may also appear before the committee. The student
in question will then be heard and given the opportunity to
present evidence and witnesses. Members of the committee may
ask questions at any point, seek additional materials or
testimony, visit any relevant location, recall or review
evidence or testimony provided earlier, and in general seek
to obtain any information bearing on the accusation. The
committee will deliberate in private, and a determination
that the honor code has been violated shall require the
presence of overwhelmingly convincing evidence. Documented
evidence and plausibility of method, in the absence of
demonstrated intent, may be enough to convict.
3. On a rotating basis, the chair shall appoint two
members of the committee to conduct a preliminary
investigation. After conducting this preliminary
investigation, the two investigators in consultation with
the chair shall determine whether or not a hearing is
warranted. If a hearing is not warranted, all records of the
case shall be immediately destroyed. If a hearing is
warranted, one investigator shall serve as a procedural
adviser for the student in question. In addition, the
student in question is urged to choose a defense advocate.
Only a current undergraduate member of the University
community may serve as the defense advocate. Both the
defense advocate and the procedural adviser may present a
summary of the case prior to the committee's deliberations.
The other investigator shall serve as clerk of the hearing;
in this capacity, he or she will arrange for a record of the
hearing to be made, may present a summary of the case prior
to deliberations, and will, at the conclusion of the
hearing, write the casebook summary and/or the summary
directed to the president of the University.
4. A quorum shall consist of seven voting members. The
number of votes necessary for conviction shall be as
follows: six of seven, or seven of seven.
5. All evidence shall be procured in every case, and in
no event shall a student be tried a second time for the same
offense, except in light of new and important evidence to be
determined by a majority vote of the committee. The
testimony of one individual by itself shall not be
sufficient to warrant another hearing.
6. The student in question shall learn of the charges
brought against him or her through a letter, which need not
be signed, written in some reasonable detail by the witness
who reported the suspected violation. They shall explain the
charges and enumerate the rights of the student in question
as hereinafter provided in Article IV, Section 7. The
student in question shall be asked to sign a statement prior
to a hearing saying he or she has been informed of his or
her rights under the honor constitution. Upon receipt of the
letter of accusation, the student may exercise his or her
right of up to seven days of preparation for the Honor
Committee hearing.
7. The rights of the student in question shall
include:
a) The right to review in advance all documents
constituting direct material evidence;
b) the right to call witnesses;
c) the right to have one of the nonvoting members of the
Honor Committee serve as a procedural adviser, who will be
present throughout the hearing process and advise the
student in question of matters concerning Honor Committee
procedures.
d) the right to choose a current undergraduate member of
the University community to serve as a defense advocate to
speak on the behalf of the student in question and to
question all witnesses. The student in question may not
serve as his or her own defense advocate.
e) the right, in the event of a conviction, to receive a
copy of a summary state ment of the grounds for the
committee's decision, and to poll the votes of the
individual committee members. This summary statement must
outline the charge made against the student, describe the
evidence and testimony provided insupport of this charge,
and provide the rationale for the committee's finding, both
in terms of verdict and punishment assigned.
f) the right, in the event of a conviction, to receive a
record of the hearing.
8. It is incumbent upon the Honor Committee members to
investigate all possible connections between the student in
question and all witnesses, and any potential ulterior
motives involved in the case, while protecting the
confidentiality of all parties involved.
9. All those involved in the investigation and hearing
process are expected to maintain the confidentiality of all
persons involved in the case.
Article V
1. Violations of the honor system shall consist of any
attempt to receive assistance from written or printed aids,
or from any person or papers, or of any attempt to give
assistance, whether the one so doing has completed his or
her own work or not. This rule holds both inside and outside
of the examination room. Other violations include, but are
not limited to, any attempt to gain an unfair advantage in
regard to an examination, such as tampering with a graded
exam or claiming another's work to be one's own.
2. Violations shall also consist of obtaining or
attempting to obtain, previous to any examinations, copies
of the examination papers or the questions to appear
thereon, or to obtain any illegal knowledge of these
questions.
3. Termed perjury, lying before the committee or
purposely misleading the committee shall also constitute a
violation of the honor code.
4. Any undergraduate not signing the pledge placed upon
the examination paper will be notified by the instructor
holding the examination, and, if unable then to sign, he or
she will be reported to the committee for investigation.
Inability to sign the pledge to an examination paper upon
notification by the instructor or by the committee shall be
prima facie evidence of violation of the honor system.
5. The pledge is as follows: "I pledge my honor that I
have not violated the honor code during this examination.''
This must at all times be written in full and signed by the
student.
6. Every student is obligated to report to the Honor
Committee any suspected violation of the honor code that he
or she has observed.
Article VI
1. The committee may use recording devices to tape the
proceedings of each case.
2. The committee will keep a written record of all cases
acted upon. These records, together with the constitution,
shall be preserved by the chair of the committee each year,
for the instruction of the committee. In the case of an
acquittal, all record of a person's involvement is
destroyed.
Article VII
The constitution may be amended (a) upon the initiative
of seven of the nine members of the committee, followed by a
three-fourths vote of the Undergraduate Student Government
members present at a meeting of the Undergraduate Student
Government; or (b) upon the initiative by petition of 200
members of the undergraduate body, followed by a
three-fourths vote in a student referendum as conducted by
the Elections Committee of the Undergraduate Student
Government. Article VII can be amended only by a student
referendum.
Article VIII
The constitution shall be published during the first week
of each college year. It shall also be printed in a
pamphlet, copies of which shall be issued to all students
upon matriculation at the University, as well as to new
members of the teaching staff. Article V of this
constitution shall be published immediately before midterm
and final examinations begin.
|