Bibliography

 

ACE-UCLA Freshman Survey, conducted in 1987 by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program of the American Council on Education (ACE) and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Alexander W. Astin (Director), Kenneth C. Green (Associate Director), with Ann Craig Hanson (now Associate Dean at Middlebury College, Middlebury Vermont) as research associate on questions concerning academic dishonesty.

          This survey is a continuing project and contains questions on academic honesty as only part of its purpose; it issues reports at inter­vals.  Its survey of the (national) freshman entering class of Fall, 1987, showed that about 30% reported they had "cheated on a test in [high] school" and 53% had "copied homework from another student."

 

Barnard, Frederick A. P.,  Letters on college government and the evils inseparable from the American college system in its present form.  New York, D. Appleton & Co, 1855.

 

Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v Horowitz [435 U.S. 78, 98 S Ct 948 (1978)] 

          Supreme court basic case.  "A school is an academic insti­tution, not a courtroom or ad­ministrative hearing room." --- Rehn­quist.

 

Baldwin et al v Dartmouth College.  A brief summary of this case through January 4, 1989 may be found in The Wall Street Journal, January 5, 1989, p. B4:  Report of the New Hampshire Superior court ruling that Christopher Baldwin and John H. Sutter should be reinstated as students at Dartmouth College after having been suspended in March, 1988 for allegedly haras­sing Professor William S. Cole.  The judge, Bruce Mohl, found that one member (Pro­fessor Lavalley) of the panel convened by Dartmouth to hear the dis­ciplinary case was prejudiced, in that he had publicly accused the two students and others of the very offenses ("racism," etc.) he later decided they had committed.  The judge returned the case to Dartmouth for a rehearing.  He did not say they "had a right to have a lawyer" at such a hearing, or a "right to cross-examine," only that they had a right to a fair hearing before unpreju­diced judges.  The background is described in The Chron­icle of Higher Edu­cation, April 6, 1988, p.A27, and in The Dart­mouth Review, February 24, 1988, p. 4, and March 2, 1988, pp 3, 7.

 

Bowers, William J., Student dishonesty and its control in college.  Co­operative Research Project No. OE 1672 of the Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, New York 10027, NY, Dec. 1964).

          A wide and representative survey of Deans, student advisors and student leaders, asking about the frequency and the concomitants of undergraduate cheating and plagiarism.  It seems to be the only survey of its scope, but may be superseded in part by the reports emerging from the ACE-UCLA Freshman Survey.

 

Campbell, William Giles, A Comparative investigation of the behavior of students under an honor system and a proctor system in the same univer­sity.  Los Angeles 1935, University of Southern Cali­fornia Press.

 

Chronicle of Higher Education (9 Feb 1981):  The University of Maryland has 100 cases per year, with 20 suspensions.  Article cites (p70) Campus Shock by Lansing Lamont (Dutton, 1979) and (p 69,70) Arthur Levine, When Dreams and Heroes Died, 1980  LA 229. L42  Published by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

 

Clayton v Trustees of Princeton University  [519 F. Supp. 802 (D.N.J.)1981)].

          (For popular accounts of the Clayton and Napolitano cases, see the New York Times articles of May 17, May 25, June 3, and June 10, 1982; June 5, 1983; and May 7, 1985; and the Chronicle of Higher Education of October 20, 1982 and May 15, 1985.  The legal scholar may con­sult the cited reports, or Jones and Semler [below], or the many cases cited in Kibler et al [below].)

          Here Clayton and Princeton both lost their motions for summary judg­ment, the judge (Ackerman, as below) saying that Clayton had a right in principle to claim tort under public law, but that Princeton did have the right in principle to suspend him (for one year, in fact) under its own rules, if it did it properly.

 

Clayton v Trustees of Princeton University [608 F.Supp. 413 (D.C.N.J. 1985)].

          Here, Clayton lost his suit on the merits.  Judge Acker­man.

 

Goldsen, Rose K. et al, What college students think, Princeton, Van Nostrand 1960.

 

Hetherington, E.M. & Feldman, S.E., College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables.  Journal of Educational Psychology, vol 55 (1964) p.212-218.

          Concomitants of cheating behavior are certain character traits such as "low self-sufficiency," "low exertion of effort," etc., but over­riding all is the situation.  If the situation conduces to cheating, cheating will rise.

 

Holmes Grace W. (Ed.), Law and discipline on campus.  Ann Arbor, In­stitute of Continuing Legal Education 1971.

 

Kibler, W.L., Nuss, E.M., Paterson, B.G., and Pavela, G., Academic Integrity and Student Development.  College Adminis­tration Publications, Inc., 1988 (the Higher education administration series), P.O. Box 8492, Asheville, NC 28814. 

                   This book comes close to the subject matter of the present volume, and contains a particularly detailed chapter on recent legal cases (such as Napolitano, Clayton and Jaska), with extensive legal bibliography.  Its chapters are written by different authors, and some are more interesting than others.  The practical suggestions for reducing cheating in actual classroom and examination settings are excellent; the model honor code and legal system differs substantially from the rather simpler and less sentimental system advocated in the present book.  The general bibliography contains many references to articles in popular and quasi-popular journals, along with the professional literature in educational journals.

 

 

Jaska v University of Michigan  [597 F. Supp. 1245 (E.D. Mich 1984)]

 

Jones, Thomas N. and Semler, Darel P., eds, School Law Update 1986, Publications of the National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas 66614.

          See p 32-46 for chapter called Plagiarism and Cheating, by Ralph D. Mawdsley and Steve Permuth.  It contains a comprehensive review of the state of the law, including Clayton, Napolitano, Horowitz, Jaska,  Mary M., and others.

 

Knowlton, J. & Hamerlynck, L., Perception of deviant behavior: A study of cheating.  Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.71 (1967), p. 214-217.

          In this  survey 81% admitted "having cheated" at some time in college, and 46% in the previous semester.  The general opinion among the students surveyed was that about 40% of their colleagues were "regular cheaters."

 

Mary M. v Clark [473 NYS 2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)]:  "student wel­fare...best served...[in a ] nonadversarial setting..."

 

Melendez, Brian, Honor Code Study, (vol 1, Report; vol 2, Case Studies; vol 3, Survey Results), Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University 1985. 

          May be obtained from the office of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University.  A study conducted by Harvard to see how honor systems work in other colleges, with a view to helping Harvard to decide whether to institute one.

 

Milton, Ohmer, with Howard R. Pollio, and James A. Eison, Making Sense of College Grades, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass 1986.

          Main thesis:  Undergraduate grades do not measure anything useful, e.g. they are not predictors of success in later life, including the pro­fes­sions.  They are statistically uncertain, they generate poor at­titudes towards education, they encourage the learning of the wrong things, they make enemies of students and their mentors, and inciden­tally, they encourage cheating.  Survey data.

 

Napolitano v Princeton University Trustees   [453 A.2d 279 (N.J.Super.Ch. 1982)].     Judge Dreier decision.

 

Napolitano v Princeton University Trustees [453 A.2d 263 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1982]

          Judge Matthews (for a three-man court) affirms Dreier's decision, es­pecially noting that while most Princeton cases of this sort do not eventuate in penalties this severe, there was precedent for this one, and not all penalties have to be comparable to be just.

 

Princeton University, Rights, Rules, Responsibilities: 1986 Edition.

          Along with the Wesleyan handbook [below], this volume describes an honor code and court system typical of traditional private universities.  It also contains an excellent discussion of plagiarism in scholarly work.

 

Raimi, Ralph A. et al, University of Rochester Senate Report of the Subcommittee on Academic Honesty, May, 1965; accompanied by On Academic Honesty at the University of Rochester, A Paper in Support of the Report of the Subcommittee.

 

Raimi, Ralph A., Cheating in College.  Harpers Magazine, May, 1966

 

Raimi, Ralph A., Examinations and Grades in College.  AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1967.

 

Steininger, M., Johnson, R.E., & Kirts, D.K.,  Cheating on college exami­nations as a function of situationally aroused anxiety and hostility.  Journal of Educational Psychology, vol.55 (1964), p.317-324.

          (Perceived) bad teaching, unfair examinations, etc. account for a great amount of cheating behavior.  Students who feel justified cheat more.

 

Thornton, William, Honour System at the University of Virginia, Sewanee Review. 15:41-57, March, 1907 (cited in Campbell, 1935)

 

Truesdell, Clifford, An Idiot's fugitive essays on science, NY Springer, 1984.  "...only a social system that forbids rewards of any kind for any individual could root out corruption." --p129

 

Wesleyan University, The Blue Book.  Middletown, Connecticut, 1986-87 (but revised periodically).  Pages 79-87 describe the Wesleyan honor system, and contain a definition of plagiarism taken from Martin, et al, The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, 3rd Ed., N.Y. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.  This treatment is typical of such handbook treatments of the honesty problem and its control in private colleges.

 

Wise, Charles R., Clients evaluate authority: the view from the other side.  Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications 1976.