|
|
|
|
|
by danaris
39 days ago
|
|
"Zero tolerance" policies like that are much more prone to the kind of excessive leniency in application that's described, precisely because the penalty for being found to have cheated is so very high. In those cases, the academic integrity committee is much more likely to demand a very high standard of proof of cheating, and it can ironically result in more people getting away with it again and again, where, in a system with (say) a "three strikes" policy, they might be more likely to be expelled, because the committee would not hesitate to give them their first and second strikes—and after that, they're clearly a repeat offender. |
|
You either did it or you didn’t. There is no small crime, they are all the same. That is honor- you have it or you don’t.
There is no “you were accused, but it’s minor so we’ll have to be more sure than usual.”
That would be as ridiculous as saying “you were accused, and it’s major, so if there’s any suspicion at all, you’re gone.”
I know that happens in practice sometimes (like to the lacrosse players at Duke, or to Phi Psi at Virginia), but it’s not just. And it’s not representative of a functional honor system.