Harvard Cheating Scandal Case Study

Honor codes have been a strong subject of dispute over the last few years. Whether to hold students accountable for their own actions, and allow them to control the cheating in a school is, in all regards, a major decision that could potentially be detrimental to a school’s society and reputation. However, the rewards for a successful honor code are exponentially higher than the cost. Schools should always have some form of honor code in place, whether it be something like a signed contract at the beginning of each semester paired with an honor court to hold violators accountable, or something as simple as a statement of trust on a worksheet.

“Psss What is the answer for number 4?”; almost every single time I took an exam as a Yeshiva University student I remember a subtle whisper enter my ear with intentions of getting an answer from me, proving that at least once which proves that at least one person in the class is currently cheating. So, I want to ask the simple question of why? What makes students particularly at yeshiva university try to scam the system and cheat? Why as a school that represents the Jewish philosophy which deliberately looks down on cheating, people are not able to respect the system and show honesty during exams ? Furthermore; students here are sometimes in a situation where they are lying to themselves. There are a lot of different perspectives of why

Egoism says that an action is right if it satisfies long term interests. Thus from this point of view, the applicants’ actions were completely ethical, as the information only benefitted them. The applicants’ actions would be unethical from the point of view of utilitarianism, as it does not promote the happiness of the majority. This is because breaking into the confidential system of any university would lead to defaming it, thus affecting the students and faculty. Kant’s Ethics promotes the idea of doing what you expect from others. Thus this behavior would be seen as unethical, as ‘hacking’ or ‘breaking into a confidential system’ is not acceptable in our society. According to Ross’ pluralism, our moral obligations are prima facie obligations; those that can outweigh more important obligations. Which could only mean that the applicants judged their decision wrongly, thus making it unethical. Rule utilitarianism sees actions as right only if they comply with a rule leading to greater good. Therefore, it sees the applicants’ behavior as unethical.

This case represents a struggle between the individual and the community or the Rolling Stone magazine and the University. Sabrina Erdely is the editor for the magazine and is considered to also be the moral agent in this case. Her position within the magazine holds her accountable for what is published to the public. On the other hand, the community, the University of Virginia, have the right to know what is really happening on their campus, because the students pay tuition and have a say in what goes on and how things are handled. Sabrina Erdely as the moral agent in this case had several responsibilities. She was responsible for the people that could potentially be affected by her decision the release the story, the magazine she worked

The requirement of students reporting cheating they witness seems unnecessary as well due

The student becomes a sort of “accessory,” or “accomplice of crime”. That notion is not a solution to solving the problem of cheating, instead, it instills guilt, and consequently stress, into students who could have seen something they may not have wanted to see. Students should not be the police; it is not their responsibility. Although, it is there responsibility to discourage cheating. If a student wants to inform a superior about cheating, that should be the student’s choice, and should be based the student’s own conviction, not because they do not want to be

If a college campus harbors an environent where cheating is seen as acceptable and an activity many people participate in, even students with correct morals and no desire to cheat themselves are less likely to report fellow students for unsavory behavior. This can also go a step further and that same student who failed to confront a peer for cheating, may give in to the school’s atmosphere and start cheating themselves. This makes them all the less likely to report other students for fear of appearing hypocritical and/or being reported themselves. A study on honor code effectiveness was completed by Sally Sledge and Pam Pringle at a small public university (Source E). Their results showed that only 8% of students would report a fellow student for cheating. Even more surprisingly, 40% of students anonymously stated that they had “violated the honor code and not been caught”. This points to a very cheater-friendly attitude at this particular school and shows that the honor system is not very effective in this

The motivation to follow the honor codes ties with the development of a positive peer culture. As source F States, a positive peer culture is, “A culture that makes most forms of serious cheating socially unacceptable among the majority of students. Many students would simply feel embarrassed to have other students find out they were cheating” This desired positive peer culture will only be achieved through the honest student body. The cheating student body can be encouraged to be honest with the harsh punishments.

An opinionated piece from McGabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela argue that, while any rule can be made, it is the punishment that comes after it is broken that causes everyone to follow it. However, since high schools cannot enforce a serious punishment that can truly teach students a lesson, the only way to enforce an honor code is to have the students do it instead. Since students will act based on what other students think of them, having the students enforcing the honor code will be the most effective way of incorporating the honor codes (Source F). In order to get the students to enforce the honor codes, the teachers must create a community within the classroom that includes a ratio that has a greater number of honest to dishonest students. Since students are heavily influenced by their peers, having the dishonest students be in a group with the honest student will discourage them to cheat, since they know that their peers will judge them.

Chace askes how does cheating become accepted? Part of the answer is the type of wrong it is. “When one compares it to a violation of copyright which is punishable in a court of law, cheating in college is only morally and ethically wrong.” (Chace, W.M., 25) Even Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. doctoral thesis at Boston University was full of words from other authors and copied down section upon section in great abundance. (Chace, W.M., 25)

In May of 1983, some students in the journalism class at hazel wood high school in Missouri, made the final edition of the school newspaper. They then gave the newspaper to the adviser, Howard Emerson, who wa a newbie. He gave the principal the final review of the paper before it was published. When the principal, Reynolds, reviewed the paper, there were 2 articles that he didn’t like. The first article was about teen pregnancy, including some comments from students that were pregnant at the school. Names weren’t given, but Reynolds thought there was too much information on the topic and he was concerned about the privacy of the students. So he took that article out. The second article was about divorce, and this one included a lot of personal stuff. Reynolds was not happy about what the students said about their families. One student said a lot of revealing things about their dad, and the dad hadn’t been given a chance to explain himself. He also didn’t want 9th graders to be reading about sex and birth control, which were in both articles. Reynolds took out the second article also, and published the rest of the paper.

Sweeney, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs Levi Pettit and Parker Rice, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity at the University of Oklahoma, were expelled from the university for “leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile education environment for others” (President Boren’s Letter). The incident occurred on March 7th, 2015, on a private bus hired by the fraternity on which men from the SAE fraternity and their dates were riding back from a national celebration of their Founder’s Day.

The article begins by situating university disciplinary proceedings legally and historically. It then turns to the Dear Colleague letter. It discusses whether OCR violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not going through notice and process. Assuming that the DCL is procedurally valid, the next section asks whether it is substantively so. Applying the tests set forth in Skidmore v Swift & Co. , Chevron v National Resources Council, and Bowles v Seminole Rock & Sand Co., the Article concludes that courts should not uphold OCR’s interpretation of Title IX. With universities free to disregard the DCL, the article concludes by discussing how universities can and should handle these cases while still remaining in compliance with Title IX.

None of the Penn State staff who learned of the suspected abuse chose to contact the police or even investigate the claims for themselves. As a result of that, countless victims were affected. The decision to ignore the events that had transpired was an attempt to not tarnish the school’s name and to protect the higher officials from the negative consequences that may have arisen.

Harvard University has a great reputation for both their academic standings and student's morality. Their fear for the reputation generated their ignorance and avoidance to these matters. Around that same year, two recent graduates pled guilty to stealing money from a Harvard-based cancer charity; one prospective student's acceptance was rescinded because she killed her own mother. These events can all potentially damage the school's great reputation, and they are reluctant to talk about these issues, as shown in the report. The social elites, those that have high academic success, defined morality in their own terms, associated with students' academic standings, as Sinedu's application to a certain class was denied because she wasn't good enough, which was a rejection she did not take well with; groups that are powerless received less help, attention from other social groups and received less help. In this case, Sinedu's status as a foreign student or "third world" student, as used in this article, could attribute to her lack of resources and the ability to access