Volume 67, Issue 7

Yeshiva’s [Nonexistent] Academic Integrity Policy
Students, Faculty Look to Eradicate Cheating
by Zev Nagel

Following the epidemic of scandals ensued by the Enron affair, WABC television visited Sy Syms School of Business to interview faculty and students.  What intrigued the TV stations’ news producers enough to include Yeshiva in an investigation on corporate dishonesty?

The answer stems from our distinctiveness in the academic community, heralding Torah U’Madda as our ideological guiding light.  And yet, Yeshiva still experiences countless cases of academic dishonesty each year; most recently five SSSB students were caught cheating on a midterm examination.  However, in deciding the fate of these students, the administration diverged on appropriate measures.

Cheating is a blatant violation of basic ethical standards and yet we are all, more or less, guilty of it.  A recent study published by Rutgers University professor Donald McCabe found that at most United States universities, 75 percent of students cheat.  Although no official data was available when the Commentator went to print, preliminary research has shown a similar situation at Yeshiva.  In fact, one student leader even estimated that at one point or another during their stay at Yeshiva, 90 percent of students cheat in some form, including borrowing homework and looking at another student’s non-examination work.

The question has become: How should Yeshiva deal with issues pertaining to academic dishonesty and how can the student body along with the administration and faculty purge the campus of cheaters?

Our Problem

Currently, along with many universities nationwide, Yeshiva is conducting extensive research as how to properly approach the situation.  Numerous committees have been founded exclusively to discuss issues relating to academic integrity, including a team of students, a round-table of college professors and administrators, and even a panel of Judaic Studies faculty and Roshei Yeshiva.

Official results from a study relating to actual percentages of cheating incidents at Yeshiva will likely be published sometime in the spring.  A recent Commentator article discussed a presentation by Writing Center Director Dr. Lauren Fitzgerald, who has been spearheading some of the recent projects launched by the administration to overcome cheating problems.  Additionally, student leaders are publishing an open letter strongly condemning all forms of cheating, and calling on all students to speak out against cheaters and shun those who engage in all forms of academic dishonesty.

SSSB Dean Dr. Charles Snow outlined four fundamental reasons for students needing to pursue academic integrity: the pursuit of Torah means pursuing lives of truth; the potential for a desecration of God’s name; the probable outcome of being shunned by the professional world; and finally the importance of maintaining the Yeshiva reputation of academic excellence.  All these reasons form the basis of Yeshiva’s standards for Torah as well as for Madda.

Furthermore, longitudinal studies assert that students who cheat profusely while in college continue to do so through graduate school and well into their professional careers.

Despite the recent incident at SSSB, Snow proudly exclaims that “our students breathe morals and ethics.”  Snow also insists on the importance in maintaining academic integrity since, “the outside world views Yeshiva as a representation of the highest ethics and moral behavior.”

However, such optimism is not expressed by all administrators.  Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Morton Lowengrub, asserts that despite the occurrence of cheating at other universities, the level and frequency of cheating at Yeshiva is “more than I am used to, even for a public university.”  Lowengrub, who has considerable experience at other major U.S. universities, prides himself in the credo of Torah U’Madda, but finds student negation of this principle to be self-contradictory.

“Cheating is like speeding,” says an anonymous SSSB junior, “even though you know its wrong and someone can get hurt, we still all do it.”

The source of this disconcerting disregard for ethical behavior is ambiguous.  However, “many students continue to cut the primary corners of this utopian education,” accuses Snow, referring to recalcitrant student attendance at morning Jewish studies.  Snow adds that even those who do attend often “do not internalize the message being taught and thus net an unimpressive worthless effort.”

The Rabbinic faculty of Yeshiva has the additional challenge of presenting material and getting students to internalize the message, while living and breathing ethical Torah behavior.  The hope is that the rabbinic committees will be able to create a clear medium to convey this message with their talmidim.

Director of Academic Advisement, Dr. Nada Glick, singles out the Internet as the source for the surge in cases of plagiarism and cheating.  “We are so used to downloading things that we fail to differentiate between our regular activity and academic situations,” affirms Glick.  “Everyone is concerned about academic integrity.  The issue of ownership is in a state of flux and we need to recognize that the new media has changed this mindset.”

“It behooves the students to exhibit academic integrity and show that their G.P.A. is not surreptitious.  If word gets out that you can get a BA at Yeshiva by cheating, every graduate of YU will be hurt in some way,” claims Snow.

In order to preempt the problem, Snow calls on the Office of Admissions to clamp down on the acceptance of recalcitrant applicants and asks the students to get the message out that “at Yeshiva, cheating will not be accepted.”

 On the Road to Academic Integrity

Cheating is not a problem exclusive to Yeshiva; the concern for personal integrity both in academia and the corporate world is ubiquitous.  In fact, lately the need to publicize the issue has become so great that Duke University has initiated a Center for Academic Integrity (CAI), which maintains a forum for initiating and advancing programs to preserve academic integrity at all types of schools.

The CAI admits that “there is no single path to academic integrity and the Center respects and values campus differences in traditions, values, and student and faculty characteristics.”  The membership of the CAI is extremely large with well over 150 schools ranging from city colleges to Ivy League universities.  Members of the CAI report, for the most part, a noticeable decline in incidents since adopting some sort of program.

Although not a member of the CAI, Yeshiva has addressed academic integrity by publishing a brochure entitled “Upholding Academic Integrity: Definitions of – and Consequences for – Cheating and Plagiarism.”  However, the recent SSSB controversy has highlighted a shortfall of this venture.

“We all read the [Plagiarism Guidelines] pamphlet in Comp class,” says Yeshiva College sophomore Dovid Green.  “I even think we spent a whole class on it,” he adds, “but it’s obvious: it doesn’t sink it.”

“Although YU has an ‘official’ policy on cheating, we have always known that this is a farce and the Sy Syms scandal has merely highlighted this fact,” adds YC junior Jonathan Wiesel.

The failure to object to the cheating on campus creates an ambiguous message to students who do cheat.  Lowengrub says that students need to tell the cheaters “they are not welcome here at Yeshiva.”

Additionally the faculty needs to come down on cheating and enforce a “zero tolerance” policy.  “Our initial gut reaction should be, you cheat, you’re out,” says Snow.  “Why should we jeopardize the career potential of 1300 students because of 40 individuals?”

Not all administrators and faculty members agree with Snow’s assessment of the situation, however.  Although no one denies cheating’s severity, many administrators oppose equalizing all forms of cheating to the same punishment.  (The final decision in the SSSB cheating incident was a result of a dispute between the deans on the proper punishment.)

Currently, the cheating and plagiarism guideline handbook outlines the maximum penalties for offenders but does not differentiate between various offenses.  “Of course cheating is objectively wrong,” says YC sophomore Daniel Raymon, “but subjectively each student has his own definitions as to what crosses the line.”

The administration needs to come out with a hardcore, specific, and all-inclusive definition of permissible and outlawed study resources, as well as the actions that constitute cheating and their specific punishments, notes one YC professor.  Objectifying the laws, leaving no room for compromise and conditions, will set the procedures straight for students removing all ambiguity and subjective reasoning.

Lowengrub has already asked the Office of Student Services, led by Senior University Dean of Students Dr. Efrem Nulman, to draft a formal student bill of rights outlining students’ rights in the event of allegations.  “Outlining the formalities of what Yeshiva permits and prohibits would be the first step in removing the uncomfortable ‘police state’ which administrators may be forced to create if no resolution can be fashioned,” explains Lowengrub.

To date, however, no formal student bill of rights has been drawn up by the administration, causing some students to wonder if this is merely a stalling ploy.  “After the debacle last year, you would expect that YU would race to write up a bill of rights,” says a YC senior.  “Now we have another embarrassment, with the Sy Syms students, and still nothing doing.”

Is an Honor Code the Answer?

Honor Codes do not just outline standards of academic integrity but also obligate students to report violations of academic integrity thereby placing responsibility with the students, sometimes through un-proctored examinations.

Studies conducted by McCabe show that schools with Honor Codes have a lower percentage of cheating incidents than schools that do not adopt any codes.  However, the results emphasize that the system only works in situations where the student government and leadership play a strong role in daily student and academic life.  “With the current apathy on the Yeshiva campus,” says one student leader, “an Honor Code would be disastrous.”

Introducing an Honor Code that places the responsibilities of monitoring cheating on the shoulders of the students is not a current option, Glick claims.  Additionally, she believes that the age of information has created questions on the definitions of permitted and prohibited materials making students “think they need to be better policed.”

Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, who is chairing a joint commission on cheating consisting of Roshei Yeshiva and Undergraduate Jewish Studies faculty, believes that a climate that already fosters cheating cannot be expected to prevent cheating; the situation first needs to change and then the relevancy of an Honor Code can be analyzed.

Some administrators feel that a code is unnecessary to begin with.  “Our Honor Code is the Torah,” says Snow boldly, adding that “students attend Yeshiva to further the link with their heritage and that means accepting moral behavior on the highest echelon.”

One McCabe study found that only 54 percent of students view copying a homework assignment as cheating and 61 percent would never turn in a fellow student.  The reluctance to report cheating incidents plagues all students; no one wants to be known as a “rat” or a traitor and the boundaries of lashon hora are not clearly defined.  YC sophomore Nachum Brown, notes that “the dialectic presented through witnessing a fellow student cheating, whether to look the other way or to rat him out, should not be decided impulsively.”

Wieder asserts that there are cases where students would be halakhically obligated to report cheating.  Indeed, there are many different ways of reporting cheating without infringing on ones own religious sensitivities.

From the faculties perspective, Glick says, “Since the students are more technologically up to date than their teachers, they know how to access the resources better.”  Thus the students need to be the ones taking stand on the issue.

Honor Codes do not always make students feel more comfortable in a testing environment, as one Barnard College student told the Commentator that she feels, “as if someone is always watching over me, waiting to pounce on me for cheating.”

Other consequences have included faculty members being accused of using excessive means to investigate suspicious student papers.  Honor Codes state that students shall be trusted and using excessive means disrupts the trust shared by students and faculty.

Another student at a university with an Honor Code explains that all incoming students must sign the Code, and “even though it’s only a pledge, it becomes a big deal” because it’s constantly reiterated by faculty and administration.  “It’s a written law, something that’s always on your mind.”

Regarding “ratting” on other students, “most of us wouldn’t rat out people even if we knew they were cheating,” she says.  “However, there is an atmosphere of social pressure that basically prohibits cheating… there’s pressure from professors, administrators, and also from fellow students.”

One member of Yeshiva’s Student Senate comments that although theoretically an Honor Code might work, “there are many nuances that must be worked out, and it’s necessary to uncover all possible options to tackle this issue.”  Honor Codes aside, however, “to truly eradicate cheating, all IBC, JSS, BMP, and especially MYP Rabbeim should come out strongly condemning any and all forms of cheating.”

Other Options

Research shows that students who cheat are often stressed out causing them to resort to short cuts.  Many psychologists have suggested that the overemphasis on competitiveness and success in the post-college world has pushed normally diligent and honest students over the edge.

This may seem to evade the pressing issue and grant liberties for students to justify their cheating behavior; however, many educators on campus recognize the problems creating by endorsing competitive behavior.

Snow, for one, is prepared to alter Yeshiva’s educational system if it will lesson cheating and lead to a more amicable learning experience.  “The corporate world will always be competitive,” says Snow, “and I understand that.  But I am prepared to devise and adapt to models that will prevent misdemeanors.”

“This is not to say, however, that the students are free from blame,” stresses Snow.  Clearly the fault ultimately lies with the student.  But the challenge has become alleviating the potential for engagement in dishonest academic activity while persuading students to abandon unethical behavior.

Unlike Snow, Glick does not share this optimism.  Our society has always been driven by pressure and competition.  The recent cases of cheating do not reflect society’s excessive competitive market, asserts Glick.  Frankly, she “doesn’t buy it.”

On the other hand, Lowengrub is interested in producing a better curriculum because “the dual-curriculum puts a limit on the amount of time students can spend in a classroom, especially when they spend a year of university in Israel.”  He suggests that Yeshiva should “think out of the box,” providing a more exciting and efficient educational experience for students, which should not be seen as a “watering down of the education; rather a commitment to provide the most enriching curriculum under the current circumstances.”

Lowengrub believes that an overhaul of the academic program will better the students’ education and break the environment that fosters cheating.

Passing Down the Mesorah

An apocryphal story is told about one YC professor who, when one student complained about unseen material on the final examination, claimed “it was in the mesorah.”

Is “mesorah” cheating?  The initial problem with defining permissible versus prohibited mesorah is defining “mesorah,” a vague term referring to anything from old notes to previous exams to homework from semesters past.

Some professors and students feel that anything – notes, old tests – are permissible because they are in public domain, though many disagree.  However, great ambiguity arises over old exams procured through surreptitious means, with many students not finding fault, whereas most professors strongly condemn the act.

Regarding general items legitimately in public domain, one YC professor asserts that any documents handed back to students is “fair game,” is not a violation of academic integrity, and in fact, should even be encouraged.  Associate Professor of Jewish Studies Rabbi Shalom Carmy, for instance, has old exams posted on his faculty website.  In fact, one professor emphasizes the benefit of making mesorah publicly available in the library and online, granting all students equal access to materials while forcing professors to alter notes and exams.

Another YC faculty member disagrees and supports only materials specifically mentioned by the professor as permissible.  Any other materials, he contends, are strictly “off limits” even if available from other students.

Mesorah may be a crutch for many, but for others it is a valuable learning resource.  “My Intro to Bible midterm covered so much material that I had no idea what to study,” explains one YC freshman.  “Once I looked over the mesorah I knew at least what to focus on.”

However, Lowengrub declares any course that uses mesorah to be “outrageous.”  The many “new advancements in every field, especially involving interdisciplinary developments, requires teachers to reform their courses and not rely on old material,” says Lowengrub.  He also adds that the usage of mesorah only fuels a non-learning attitude environment, and thus he calls on all teachers to stray from mesorah-like teaching methods and examinations.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Although statistics and studies convey much about human nature and the basis for cheating while even establishing models for eradicating such behavior, it cannot solve our own cheating problems.

The faculty and administration should be given a lot of credit for putting the issue on the table and exploring the possibilities; however, all roads point to the students to pursue its implementation and speak out against cheating.

Even after finalizing his research theories, McCabe still maintains that “it matters what sort of community you create on your campus and how students perceive the issue.  What an honor code does is transfer the issue to the responsibility to the students.  Honor codes have students thinking about the issue and struggling with the issue. They get some moral education.”

Most of the students at Yeshiva have had a “moral education” for their entire lives and the failure to embody the values that comply with behavior that is so fundamental to their existential experience indicates a catastrophic educational system and deteriorating society.  It is up to the students to put a stop to this kind of behavior and return to the ideological grandeur that makes Yeshiva unique.¨

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.