Four semesters ago, Harvard introduced the Freshman Pledge system. It was a call for freshmen to reaffirm the values of integrity and kindness that was met with little fanfare. At the time, the general consensus was that the pledges were an overbearing move that overstepped the institution’s mission. This very publication referred to the pledge as a “halfhearted attempt at addressing a non-issue.” The accepted wisdom in fall of 2011 was that Harvard’s commitment to academic excellence was more important than reaffirming abstract values.
In the intervening year, a series of scandals have made a central statement of values seem less ludicrous. Cheating scandals in Quiz Bowl and Government 1310 cast shadows on our integrity, and the mental health debate revealed that many students do not feel that their peers value their wellbeing. In both the cheating scandal and the mental health discussions, much of our criticism has been focused on the administration. We’ve called for resignations over the mishandling of the cheating scandal and rallied against the structural barriers to mental health at UHS. On the other hand, we remain rather unenthusiastic to the university’s efforts to reaffirm our positive values through the creation of an honor code.
Although all 7,000+ of us received a link to the newly proposed honor code in our emails, few of us actually read it and only a handful publicly responded to it via the discussion board. Over 50 students proudly posted their name on the College Event Board’s discussion board during the Tyga debate, yet only seven have posted responses to the newly proposed honor code. The general sense is that honor code or no honor code, Harvard’s high-pressure culture will remain the same.
This logic assumes that most Harvard students truly do value success over integrity, while the opposite is true. A survey of the Class of 2004 found that while Harvard students list hard work, honesty, and respect as their top values, they thought success was more valued by Harvard as an institution. Thus, what is often conceived of as a problem of values is actually a problem of perception. In a sense, the critics are correct; establishing an honor code is not likely to fundamentally alter the values of Harvard students. That’s because Harvard students are no less concerned with values than students at other universities. We just think we are. In conversations with friends we obsess about the culture of success while lauding ourselves for being morally above average. We fear telling our friends that we are stressed out, or that we are barely coping, or that we feel inadequate and then in an ironic twist of fate we see those same friends in the waiting room for Mental Health Services. If we take the honor code seriously, and truly take ownership of it, it won’t necessarily transform us, but it will transform the way we see each other.
There is already significant evidence that honor codes reduce academic dishonesty. In The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, Dan Ariely found that declarations of morals lower the likelihood of plagiarism and cheating. Another study on honor codes published in 2002 found that one’s perception of his or her peers is a greater predictor of cheating than the fear of being caught or the potential severity of penalties. While in the fall of 2011, statements of values seemed frivolous and unrelated to Harvard’s educational mission, these studies and the events of the past year show that the two are tightly linked. When we cannot trust that our peers will treat us with kindness and integrity, we are less likely to collaborate or take risks. We are more likely to settle for easy or stolen victories than strive towards true excellence. We shouldn’t let the administration off the hook for their role in the current ethical crisis, but we shouldn’t let ourselves off the hook either.