The Instrument for Student Judicial Governance is a social contract between the faculty and the student body in which both parties derive significant benefits and accept certain responsibilities. As a faculty member, I must report possible violations of the Honor Code to the Student Attorney General. While I have some discretion in whether I report a case, I am specifically prohibited by the Instrument from acting privately to sanction students I suspect of academic cheating.
These provisions are good for me because I don't have to conduct the investigation of the suspected offense myself, and very good indeed for the accused students in that they do not have to argue with an upset faculty member. They also have due process rights, their case is heard before an impartial court of five UNC undergraduate students who have undergone training concerning the judicial process and the meaning of the Instrument (a much more refined jury pool than is found in civil or criminal courts) and the standard of proof required before they can be found guilty and sanctioned is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Instrument also establishes sanctions that are stronger than any individual faculty member could impose.
Just after the end of last spring semester, I became aware that three sets of students totaling 24 people had turned in for grading essentially identical solutions to their final assignment, a six-page-long computer program. My duty is laid out explicitly in the Instrument: I prepared the evidence and submitted it to the Student Attorney General.
After some time, several cases were dismissed and charges were made in others. Disciplinary hearings began, and because the Honor Court panel that hears each case is normally independent of any previous panels, I have had to testify at length in each hearing to explain to the court how I evaluated these programs and why their similarity cannot have arisen due to chance. This evaluation involves simple text comparison - computer programming expertise is not required. I have cooperated fully with both investigation and defense counsels before and during the hearings by satisfying every request for documents, information, advice and preliminary meetings.
The first conclusion I draw from this experience is that sometimes "just doing your duty" is a bitch. Nothing about this has been easy, but its importance to the whole community outweighs the distraction and inconvenience.
I have been impressed with the seriousness, dedication and hard work of the student attorney general and her staff and the Honor Court, and I say this in spite of my strong disagreement with some decisions they have made.
The published criticism of their work has been inflammatory and unfair. Honor Court hearings do not resemble TV courtroom dramas. In fact, neither do the proceedings of civil or criminal courts. Remember the widespread criticism of normal courtroom procedure in early stages of the O. J. Simpson trial?
The service of students in the student judicial system might be "extracurricular activity," but these are no mere social clubs. Their work naturally affects the records of defendants, but it also defends the rights of all students defined by the Instrument and defines operationally the notion of academic integrity on this campus. These people are unsung heroes of the academic life at UNC. Without them, faculty confidence in the Instrument would erode, and the Instrument and its benefits would be jeopardized.
Interest in the rare open hearing was high, and because one of the defendants is an outstanding student, questions arose as to how he could be charged with and found guilty of academic cheating. Here is my understanding of the answer.
