Joint committee examines honor code controversy
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
Associate Provost and Vice President
We write to thank The Observer for the attention it has given the recently revised Academic Code of Honor in a front page article on Sept. 25 and an editorial on Sept. 27. Undergraduate students will soon receive, if they have not already, an email explaining in greater detail some of the more significant revisions of the honor code. The revision of the honor code and the attention it has been given will, we hope, heighten awareness of issues of academic integrity throughout the University.
In its Sept. 27 editorial The Observer raised an important issue regarding the faculty's use of Turnitin.com, an internet plagiarism detection service the University has recently contracted. "While a service like Turnitin.com should be employed in cases where professors have a reasonable suspicion of dishonesty," The Observer argues, "it should not be used as a standard procedure in the grading process."
The Observer's concerns are shared by members of the faculty and they merit careful consideration. The appropriate use of Turnitin.com will be taken up by the University Code of Honor Committee, a body composed of six students and six faculty members, which will begin discussion of this issue at its first meeting today.
While we are grateful to The Observer for its interest and for raising an important issue, we strongly disagree with its claim in the Sept. 27 editorial that "the honor code revisions and the contract with Turnitin.com indicate that trust [between professors and students] has been broken."
On the contrary, trust and common commitment to academic integrity has never been greater. The revision of the honor code is the result of a great deal of hard and conscientious work, with wide consultation by faculty and students; the new code enhances the role of students, working with faculty, in the administration honor code procedures; and it was passed unanimously by the Academic Council, a body which includes both faculty and student representation. The University community should be proud of the joint efforts of faculty and students to defend and even strengthen academic integrity at Notre Dame.
Regarding the contract with Turnitin.com, this service was intended as a tool to assist individual faculty and honesty committees to exonerate students as well as to establish that dishonesty has occurred. Whether Turnitin.com should be used by individual faculty in cases in which there is no prior suspicion of dishonesty is an important question, and a policy concerning its use will be debated and established by the students and faculty of the University Code of Honor Committee. But the fact that this tool has been acquired does not determine how it will be used, and so we do not believe the mere acquisition of the Turnitin.com service is in itself a sign of broken trust.
As the University Code of Honor Committee discusses the appropriate use of Turnitin.com and other issues related to the implementation of the honor code, we welcome contributions from members of the University community. Please feel free to pass your observations and opinions on to us or other members of the committee. Academic honesty is the concern and responsibility of every student and faculty member at Notre Dame. The students and faculty of the University Code of Honor Committee welcome your thoughts as it strives to make decisions in light of the ideals of Notre Dame's honor code.
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
Associate Provost and Vice President
Maura Kelly
Student Honor Code Officer
Co-Chairs of University Honor Code Committee
Sept. 29
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, September 30, 2002
