As of the summer of 2026, Dickinson's multi-year "Core Values Project" had reached its conclusion, and the College's website was then updated with a page devoted to what project participants had identified as our five core values. Those core values are: Curiosity, Compassion, Integrity, Equity, and Tenacity.
Here's what the website says about our core value of Integrity, in particular:
Here's what the website says about our core value of Integrity, in particular:
I, too, consider integrity to be of utmost importance, both to the overall well-being of academic institutions, and also more broadly to the establishment and maintenance of trust between members of a shared community.
But does the College really value integrity? By its own standards, this would mean there'd be an "alignment between who we say we are and who we are in practice." But is there such an alignment? Let's see.
Who do we say we are? Here's part of an answer, from a page on the College's website entitled "Academic Integrity":
But does the College really value integrity? By its own standards, this would mean there'd be an "alignment between who we say we are and who we are in practice." But is there such an alignment? Let's see.
Who do we say we are? Here's part of an answer, from a page on the College's website entitled "Academic Integrity":
So, part of "who we say we are" is this: we're an institution that expects students to abide by norms and standards of academic honesty and integrity, respecting their own and others' ideas, in ways defined and explained in our "Community Standards."
Already, then, it seems we can infer the following: according to our own stated understanding of the core value of "Integrity," if we say we're going to hold students to these norms and standards of academic honesty and integrity, but then we don't actually do that if and whenever a student violates those standards, there's a misalignment between who we say we are and who we are in practice. And that'd be to lack integrity ... right?
So, what do we say in the "Community Standards"? Here's (part of) what we say about "cheating":
Already, then, it seems we can infer the following: according to our own stated understanding of the core value of "Integrity," if we say we're going to hold students to these norms and standards of academic honesty and integrity, but then we don't actually do that if and whenever a student violates those standards, there's a misalignment between who we say we are and who we are in practice. And that'd be to lack integrity ... right?
So, what do we say in the "Community Standards"? Here's (part of) what we say about "cheating":
Here's what we say about "plagiarism":
And here's what we say about "misuse of generative AI":
For the record, I appreciate the work of everyone involved in writing this document. Not only do I think this kind of work is really important for the good of the College, but also, I believe they've done a fantastic job here. As someone who works in ethics, I'm well aware of how difficult it can be sometimes to define clearly the boundaries between right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, and so on. And for the most part, I think this document is admirably clear in the boundaries it draws.
Now, I have a story to tell.
During the Spring 2026 semester, I taught a course called The Philosophy of Humor. One of the major assignments of the course is a take-home midterm exam consisting of seven questions: four questions asking students to identify and explain four key passages from the readings, and three questions prompting students to compare and contrast different philosophical theories of humor as they might be applied to three particular examples.
When I distributed the exam in class, I gave the same verbal instructions I've always given for my take-home exams -- which, for the record, I do in several courses, and have done for almost 20 years of teaching: I tell students they're free to meet together, share notes, discuss the questions, etc. -- since this seems to me the equivalent of "studying" together for an in-class exam -- but, when it comes to actually writing out their answers to the questions, they need to do this themselves.
Two students in the class very clearly cheated on this exam. Here, for example, is a screenshot of one of their answers to question #5 (I've highlighted the most relevant part):
Now, I have a story to tell.
During the Spring 2026 semester, I taught a course called The Philosophy of Humor. One of the major assignments of the course is a take-home midterm exam consisting of seven questions: four questions asking students to identify and explain four key passages from the readings, and three questions prompting students to compare and contrast different philosophical theories of humor as they might be applied to three particular examples.
When I distributed the exam in class, I gave the same verbal instructions I've always given for my take-home exams -- which, for the record, I do in several courses, and have done for almost 20 years of teaching: I tell students they're free to meet together, share notes, discuss the questions, etc. -- since this seems to me the equivalent of "studying" together for an in-class exam -- but, when it comes to actually writing out their answers to the questions, they need to do this themselves.
Two students in the class very clearly cheated on this exam. Here, for example, is a screenshot of one of their answers to question #5 (I've highlighted the most relevant part):
I guess, if you're going to cheat on a Philosophy of Humor exam, you might as well do so in as funny a way as possible, such as accidentally copying and pasting part of your ChatGPT dialogue into the exam itself.
But what's even funnier is that Dickinson's "Office of Student Conduct" -- in particular, a hearing panel consisting of ??? (librarian), ??? (archaeology), and a student representative -- found this student "not responsible" for academic misconduct here.
The course syllabus very explicitly tells students to consult the "Community Standards" document if they have any questions about what does and does not count as academic misconduct. And as the "Community Standards" document makes clear (see above): "Unless it is expressly permitted by your professor, articulated through the syllabus or other course documents, it is unacceptable for students to use generative AI tools on assignments or exams. Without this explicit permission, use of these tools constitutes a violation of Dickinson’s academic misconduct policy."
Well, I never "expressly permitted" students to use AI on the exam. So, this is a violation of Dickinson's academic misconduct policy. Or so one would think.
And here are the two students' answers to question #7 on the exam, side by side, with obvious similarities between the two exams once again highlighted (for context, the two students are good friends):
But what's even funnier is that Dickinson's "Office of Student Conduct" -- in particular, a hearing panel consisting of ??? (librarian), ??? (archaeology), and a student representative -- found this student "not responsible" for academic misconduct here.
The course syllabus very explicitly tells students to consult the "Community Standards" document if they have any questions about what does and does not count as academic misconduct. And as the "Community Standards" document makes clear (see above): "Unless it is expressly permitted by your professor, articulated through the syllabus or other course documents, it is unacceptable for students to use generative AI tools on assignments or exams. Without this explicit permission, use of these tools constitutes a violation of Dickinson’s academic misconduct policy."
Well, I never "expressly permitted" students to use AI on the exam. So, this is a violation of Dickinson's academic misconduct policy. Or so one would think.
And here are the two students' answers to question #7 on the exam, side by side, with obvious similarities between the two exams once again highlighted (for context, the two students are good friends):
|
|
Again, the course syllabus explicitly endorses the "Community Standards" document as its guide for what does and does not count as academic misconduct. And unless I'm misreading it, the "Community Standards" document pretty clearly identifies "copying from another person's work or answers" as one of the primary forms of cheating. Also, to "use without proper citation or acknowledgment the words, ideas, or work of another" is plagiarism. As far as I can tell, then, the above exam responses count as instances of both cheating and plagiarism -- at least, according to our "Community Standards." And for what it's worth, when initially confronted, both students admitted to sharing and copying each other's answers here.
But again, Dickinson's "Office of Student Conduct" found the two students "not responsible" for academic misconduct.
And here's why: weeks after being confronted and confessing to academic misconduct, when they realized they may now be facing serious consequences, the two students concocted a lie according to which my verbal instructions for the exam could reasonably have been interpreted as contradicting my own course syllabus and permitting students to engage in straightforward violations of the College's standards for academic misconduct -- including using AI and copying one another's answers. Basically: "He said we could do this."
During the hearing, I clearly and unequivocally denied doing any such thing, as it is both false and absurd.
But -- despite my syllabus explicitly endorsing the "Community Standards" as its own standard for academic misconduct, and despite a total lack of any evidence for the students' claim, and despite the obvious incentive the students had for lying about such a thing -- the hearing panelists chose to believe them over me, and to find them "not responsible" for academic misconduct.
How's that for "Integrity"?
As ambassadors of the College, and presumed sharers of its "core values," you might think these people have an obligation to align "who we say we are" with "who we are in practice." But now that I have some reason to think the "Office of Student Conduct" cares quite a bit less than I do about aligning "who we say we are" with "who we are in practice," at least as it concerns academic integrity and misconduct, I've lost whatever trust I once had in that body. (After all, "We consider integrity foundational for the development of self-trust and trust in others.") As long as I never initiate another conduct process, I can continue pretending (perhaps naively) that the College really does care about Integrity, and it's just a few bad students who do not.
For the record, I think the hearing panelists in this case are guilty of harming the College. Academic institutions and intellectual communities are only as strong as the standards they're willing to uphold. What the "Office of Student Conduct" has effectively communicated to these students is not that "Academic honesty and integrity are a necessary foundation for scholarly work," nor that "Cheating and/or plagiarism in any form is unacceptable" -- this, again, is "who we say we are" in the "Community Standards." Rather, what they've communicated to the students is this: if you're going to engage in academic misconduct, do a better job of not getting caught; and if you do get caught, just lie and say the professor said you could. Apparently, that's "who we are in practice."
To fellow members of the College faculty: for what little it may be worth, I'd recommend doing everything in your power to avoid ever having to deal with the "Office of Student Conduct," especially if you care even a little bit about academic integrity. For my own part, I'm completely redesigning course assignments and exams, rethinking which courses to teach, rethinking which things to assign, and so on, all to avoid placing the value and significance of Integrity into the hands of moral cowards who would rather harm the College.
But again, Dickinson's "Office of Student Conduct" found the two students "not responsible" for academic misconduct.
And here's why: weeks after being confronted and confessing to academic misconduct, when they realized they may now be facing serious consequences, the two students concocted a lie according to which my verbal instructions for the exam could reasonably have been interpreted as contradicting my own course syllabus and permitting students to engage in straightforward violations of the College's standards for academic misconduct -- including using AI and copying one another's answers. Basically: "He said we could do this."
During the hearing, I clearly and unequivocally denied doing any such thing, as it is both false and absurd.
But -- despite my syllabus explicitly endorsing the "Community Standards" as its own standard for academic misconduct, and despite a total lack of any evidence for the students' claim, and despite the obvious incentive the students had for lying about such a thing -- the hearing panelists chose to believe them over me, and to find them "not responsible" for academic misconduct.
How's that for "Integrity"?
As ambassadors of the College, and presumed sharers of its "core values," you might think these people have an obligation to align "who we say we are" with "who we are in practice." But now that I have some reason to think the "Office of Student Conduct" cares quite a bit less than I do about aligning "who we say we are" with "who we are in practice," at least as it concerns academic integrity and misconduct, I've lost whatever trust I once had in that body. (After all, "We consider integrity foundational for the development of self-trust and trust in others.") As long as I never initiate another conduct process, I can continue pretending (perhaps naively) that the College really does care about Integrity, and it's just a few bad students who do not.
For the record, I think the hearing panelists in this case are guilty of harming the College. Academic institutions and intellectual communities are only as strong as the standards they're willing to uphold. What the "Office of Student Conduct" has effectively communicated to these students is not that "Academic honesty and integrity are a necessary foundation for scholarly work," nor that "Cheating and/or plagiarism in any form is unacceptable" -- this, again, is "who we say we are" in the "Community Standards." Rather, what they've communicated to the students is this: if you're going to engage in academic misconduct, do a better job of not getting caught; and if you do get caught, just lie and say the professor said you could. Apparently, that's "who we are in practice."
To fellow members of the College faculty: for what little it may be worth, I'd recommend doing everything in your power to avoid ever having to deal with the "Office of Student Conduct," especially if you care even a little bit about academic integrity. For my own part, I'm completely redesigning course assignments and exams, rethinking which courses to teach, rethinking which things to assign, and so on, all to avoid placing the value and significance of Integrity into the hands of moral cowards who would rather harm the College.
