I. INTRODUCTION

Students pledge not to receive any assistance and not to engage in any of the specific violations of the Honor Code outlined below. Students must sign the pledge on any formal academic exercise if so requested by the instructor concerned. The pledge reads, “Pledge, no aid, no violations.”

B. Acts Constituting a Violation of the Honor Code

The following seven infractions constitute the basis for the Honor Code:

1. The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise without due acknowledgment;

3. The submission of the same work for academic credit more than once without permission;

4. Willful falsification of data, information, or citations in any formal academic exercise;

5. Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the instructor for the formal academic exercise;

6. The failure to take constructive action in the event of committing or observing a violation or an apparent violation.

7. Providing false information and/or deceptive use of documents during an Honor Board hearing.

C. Constructive Action

It is the responsibility of members of the University to take constructive action in the case of committing or observing an apparent violation of the Honor Code, though this does not imply that constructive action requires the observer of an apparent violation to report to a third party, e.g., a person other than the alleged violator. The following procedures constitute means of taking constructive action:

1. A student who believes his/her actions may conflict with the principles of responsibility and integrity in the Honor Code must discuss the matter with a member of the Honor Board as soon as possible.

2. If a person believes that the actions of a student might conflict with the Honor Code, the person may discuss the matter as soon as possible with the student concerned. If, after discussion, either person remains concerned about a possible conflict with the code, the student whose actions are in question must bring the matter to a member of the Honor Board.

3. The observer of an apparent violation may report the matter directly to the Honor Board without consulting the alleged violator.

4. The observer of an apparent violation may make a report to a resident advisor, a faculty member, or other University official. The person to whom the report is made shall discuss the matter as soon as possible with the alleged violator or shall report the matter to the Honor Board.

III. THE HONOR BOARD

A. The Honor System shall be directed and guided by the Honor Board.  No punitive action may be taken by a faculty member or University official with respect to an alleged violation of the code unless fair process is followed. In a particular case, a faculty member or University official may make a confidential recommendation to the Honor Board as to what he/she considers an appropriate penalty to be levied by the board, but primary responsibility for adjudication of Honor Code infractions resides with the Honor Board. The appropriate faculty members and University officials shall implement any sanctions imposed by The Honor Board.

B. The Honor Board shall consist of four student members, all with vote.

1. Of these four student members, two shall be juniors and two shall be seniors. New members shall be selected by a panel of students composed of the current members of the Honor Board and at least three members of the Wesleyan Student Assembly. Normally, both juniors shall be reappointed for a second year. One of these juniors shall become chair in his/her senior year, although both may serve as co-chairs during their second year.

2. The vice president for student affairs shall serve as an ex officio member of the Honor Board.

A. The Honor Board shall extend fair process as defined in the Guidelines for University Disciplinary Proceedings. (See Joint Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students available

online at www.wesleyan.edu/studenthandbook/appendix.ctt .)

B. An individual shall receive notice, in writing, of the specific charge(s) brought against him/her. Such charge(s) must be presented within a time adequate to allow for the preparation of his/her defense. At the time of receiving such notice, the person shall also be informed of his/her rights and of the procedure of the board before which he/she will appear.

C. An individual shall have the right to a hearing scheduled without unnecessary delay and shall be presumed innocent until proven in violation.

D. If punitive action is taken by a faculty member or University official with respect to an alleged violation of the code, the student has the right ask the Honor Board for a hearing on the alleged infraction(s).

E. An individual has the right to an advisor of his/her choice from within the University.

F. An individual has the right to summon witnesses in reasonable number and to question them personally or through an advisor. Similarly, the individual shall have the right to know the identity of his/her accuser(s) and witnesses to the alleged violation. At the summons of either the board or the accused, any member of the University, unless exempted by this section, has the obligation to testify as extensively as the board may require.

G. An individual shall have the right to an open or closed hearing at his/her discretion. A hearing is confined to the taking of evidence and the hearing of witnesses. The Honor Board reserves the right to a closed session for its deliberations.

H. At the hearing, all evidence and testimony bearing upon the alleged violation shall be introduced in the presence of the individual, who shall have the right to challenge any evidence and question any witness. No member of the University staff with whom an accused has entered into a confidential relationship shall be called upon by the Honor Board to give evidence or information arising from that relationship without the permission of the person appearing before the judicial body. This shall not prevent an accused from calling persons with whom he/she has entered into confidential relationships to give evidence arising from that relationship. Through the permission of the accused, the witness who imparts confidential information must testify with regard to this specific information in response to questions from the board, except that nothing in these provisions is to be construed to require any person to violate the ethics of his/her profession.

I. A written summary of the decision shall be available for inspection by members of the University. The summation shall include a general statement of the charges, the judgment, and the rationale for the decision where necessary. The summation shall not name the accused or any witnesses nor include any information unnecessary to apprise members of the community of the charges or the judgment.

J. A finding of violation shall require the unanimous vote of the board.

K. In cases of violation, the board shall invoke such penalties as it sees fit. All decisions of the Honor Board shall be reported to the vice president for student affairs, who is responsible for the implementation of the decision. When sanctions entail changes in grades, the faculty member(s) involved is (are) required to implement the decision of the Honor Board.

L. Appeal of Honor Board decisions may be taken by the student to the President on the basis of the following: violation of fair process; excessive or inappropriate sanction; new evidence that was not readily available at the time of the hearing; and procedural error (if the error adversely affected the outcome of the hearing).

M. Except as explained herein and required by the procedures of the Honor Board, or as permitted by the written consent of the accused, all members of the Honor Board have an obligation to treat as confidential the proceedings of any case.

N. For cases that are filed after the Honor Board has left campus after the end of the spring semester, students have the option of requesting a hearing before the vice president for student affairs along with at least one Honor Board member, provided that the faculty member bringing the case is also available. This option can be exercised only when the aforementioned parties are present. This policy is designed for situations in which (1) the student opts to proceed with the case over the summer instead of waiting for a hearing before the full Honor Board during the following fall semester, or (2) the student is scheduled to participate in a fall and/or winter study abroad program and needs to have the case adjudicated to determine his/her standing.

O. An individual who fails to appear for a duly scheduled Honor Board hearing must present documentation to the vice president for student affairs and Honor Board verifying an emergency, such as family or medical, that prevented attendance. The vice president for student affairs and the Honor Board will decide together whether the excuse warrants a rescheduled hearing. Failure to appear without a valid excuse constitutes a forfeiture of the privilege of a formal Honor Board Hearing, as it is defined under the Joint Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students, Section VI, Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings, Section D, Hearing Committee Procedures (available online at www.wesleyan.edu/studenthandbook/appendix.ctt). If the vice president for student affairs and the Honor Board determine that the individual has forfeited the privilege, the individual will not be entitled to reschedule an Honor Board Hearing, and the case will be adjudicated by the Honor Board without the student present.

V. RECORDS

The decision of the Honor Board shall be reported to the vice president for student affairs. The vice president for student affairs shall receive written reports from the Honor Board, and a copy, together with the paper or papers involved in the violation of the Honor Code, shall be preserved in the records of the Honor Board.

VI. PENALTIES

Violations of the Honor Code are among the most serious offenses an individual may commit at Wesleyan. The Honor Board shall invoke penalties at its discretion, up to, and including, dismissal from the University.

PLAGIARISM

For this last reason, plagiarism is particularly damaging to the plagiarist. Just as an impersonator may get lost among assumed roles, a plagiarist will almost certainly have a false understanding of himself/herself, and of the education he/she is getting. “Theft,” “fraud,” and “impersonation” are harsh words, but they accurately represent the moral status of plagiarism and the severe prevailing attitude toward it. Students who use another’s ideas or language without giving credit violate the most basic agreement between students and the University; they attack the academic enterprise at its heart. If students realize this, they will hardly plagiarize intentionally, unless they are very cynical indeed. Unfortunately, the proper use of other people’s work is a delicate business, and students do sometimes plagiarize without intending to do so. Moreover, education consists almost entirely in the proper use of other people’s ideas, so that what the University asks you to do bears a certain resemblance to what it asks you not to do. Inevitably, and rightly, a large part of what any student can produce comes from books, from instructors, and from other students. Nearly as bad as plagiarism would be a total refusal to be influenced by what other people have written or said, i.e., to participate in the educational interchange. Thus it is necessary that all students familiarize themselves at the outset (if they are not already familiar) with the difference between legitimate and illegitimate borrowings. Those who are uncertain should find the following essay helpful.

“DEFINITION OF PLAGIARISM”

By Harold C. Martin1

The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the manufacturer who mislabels his products is the plagiarist: the student or scholar who leads his reader to believe that what he is reading is the original work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the distinction between plagiarism and honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone’s mind, there would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes men of good will draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds of “borrowing” and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained through independent research and reflection.1

The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word copying of another’s writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes, of course, the copying of all or any part of another student’s paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term, which one has come across in reading and which so admirably expresses one’s opinion that one is tempted to make it personal property. Between these poles there are degrees and degrees, but they may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit—but more the result perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent—is the patching together of random jottings made in the course of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people’s ideas and words, the writer’s sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honesty, though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, an abbreviated (and often skillfully prepared) restatement of someone else’s analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person’s text has been the basis for the recapitulation.

__________________________________________________

The examples given below should make clear the dishonest and the proper use of source material. If instances occur which these examples do not seem to cover, conscience will in all likelihood be prepared to supply advice.

THE SOURCE2

It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of Government to our own democracy. Without it we should miss some of the most familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the statesmen who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. All these are marks of the influence of Locke’s Second Treatise on our own way of life.

 In this example, after composing half of a first sentence, the writer copies exactly what is in the original text, leaving out the center section of the paragraph and omitting the names of Montesquieu and Rousseau where he takes up the text again. The last sentence is also the writer’s own.

If the writer had enclosed all the copied text in quotation marks and had identified the source in a footnote, he would not have been liable to the charge of plagiarism; a reader might justifiably have felt, however, that the writer’s personal contribution to the discussion was not very significant.

The crystallizing force of Locke’s writing may be seen in the effect his Second Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal are modern examples. But even the foundations of our state the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. True, the influence of others is also marked in our Constitution from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law; but the fundamental influence is Locke’s Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines.

Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original text and moved into new patterns:

crystallizing force of Locke’s writing

some of the familiar features of our own government

much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court

combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal

have re-echoed its claims for human liberty . . . property

from the trend and aim . . . Grotius

to say nothing of Aristotle and . . . natural law

quarry of liberal doctrines

As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a procedure. To put every stolen phrase within quotation marks would produce an almost unreadable, and quite worthless, text.

______________________________

2 Charles L. Sherman, Introduction to John Locke: “Treatise on Civil Government” and a “Letter Concerning Toleration.” New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1937.

Paraphrase: Many fundamental aspects of our own government are

Original: Many familiar features of our own government are

P: apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. One can safely

O: apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. It is safe to

P: say that the oft-censured Supreme Court really owes its existence

O: assert that the much criticized . . . court obtained its being as

P: once to the Lockeian demand that powers in government be kept

O: a result of Locke’s insistence upon the separation of powers;

P: separate; equally one can say that the allocation of varied

O: and that the combination of many powers

P: and widespread authority to the president during the era of

O: in the hands of the executive under the

P: the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is

O: New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is

P: contrary to the principles enunciated therein . . . Once more it

O: contrary to the principles enunciated therein . . . Again we see

P: is possible to note the way in which Locke’s writing clarified existing opinion

O: the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing.

The foregoing interlinear presentation shows clearly how the writer has simply traveled along with the original text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except where his understanding fails him, as it does with “crystallizing,” or where the ambiguity of the original is too great a tax on his ingenuity for him to proceed, as it is with “to encounter opposition... consciously traced” in the original.

In point of fact this source does not particularly lend itself to honest paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence which the paraphraser above copied without change except for abridgement.  The purpose of paraphrase should be to simplify or to throw a new and significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be honestly used and should rarely be resorted to by the student except for the purpose, as was suggested above, of his personal enlightenment.

The Second Treatise of Government is a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property—all three, major dogmas of American constitutionalism—owe their presence in our Constitution in large part to the remarkable Treatise, which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to spark, within three years, a revolution in the land of its author’s birth and, ninety years later, another revolution against that land.

Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two striking terms—“quarry of liberal doctrines” and “crystallizing force”; a perfectly proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase; The Second Treatise of Government is, to use Sherman’s suggestive expression, a “quarry of liberal doctrines.” In it the “crystallizing force”—the term again is Sherman’s—of Locke’s writing is markedly apparent.

Other phrases in the text above—“the cause of human liberty,” “the principle of the separation of powers,” “the inviolability of private property”—are clearly drawn directly from the original source but are so much matters in the public domain, so to speak, that no one could reasonably object to their re-use in this fashion.

Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious offense, and the punishment for it is commensurately severe. What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by anyone but himself; what the student who plagiarizes and “gets away with it” suffers is less public and probably less acute, but the corruptness of his act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must inevitably leave a mark on him as well as on the institution of which he is a member.

Mr. Martin’s remarks cover the use of written sources. A number of problems also arise that have to do with use of ideas picked up in the classroom or in conversations. In general, it is not necessary to give credit to Professor A for his ideas in a paper submitted to him; but a paper submitted to Professor B should acknowledge Professor A’s influence. Discussion with other students will produce understanding of a general sort that need not be traced to its origin, but whenever discussion contributes something specific to the writing of a paper, that contribution should be noted. In ambiguous cases it is best to err on the side of being overscrupulous. Finally, it is legitimate to have a friend read a draft of a paper and comment on its clarity, logic, or accuracy. Such assistance should be acknowledged; and in no case should the assistance extend to rewriting.

It is impossible, in a brief treatment of this sort, to anticipate every problem that can arise in the use of sources. But the principle is clear: Always give credit for ideas and phrasings that do not originate with you, except when they are commonplace or when they are so familiar in the context of a given course that the instructor could not mistake your intention. This is a rigorous principle, rigorously applied at Wesleyan. It is also an honorable one, and adherence to it is one of the satisfactions of a mature student who is getting an honest education.