Monday, June 29, 2009

Puget Sound Rosetta Orwell Stone Located!

Apologies to Dan Brown, below is my report on the recent Honor Code.



Shortly before her untimely and suspicious demise, linguist Rosetta Orwell Stone had discovered a cryptic code in use on campus. On the underside of a boulder stating the university’s etiology in and dedication to good citizenship and Christian religion, Dr. Stone discovered a new micro-chip off the old boulder. The micro-chip preserved a secret code for phrasing documents from Student Affairs.

Applying the secret code to an honor code recently approved by the trustees, Dr. Stone learned that the honor code hid a remarkable message.

As passed by the trustees, the honor code appears to have been produced when meringue and tapioca, each travelling near the speed of light, collided over a blue dress:

“I am a member of the community of the University of Puget Sound, which is dedicated to developing its members’ academic abilities and personal integrity. I accept the responsibilities of my membership in this community and acknowledge that the purpose of this community demands that I conduct myself in accordance with Puget Sound’s policies of Academic and Student Integrity. As a student at the University of Puget Sound, I hereby pledge to conduct myself responsibly and honorably in my academic activities, to be fair, civil, and honest with all members of the Puget Sound community, and to respect their safety, rights, privileges, and property.”

Not so fast, Dr. Stone cautioned. “The ocean is a desert with its life underground and the perfect disguise above, as the folk-rock group America told us long ago,” said the linguist. “So, too, the honor code is the perfect cover for an insidious oath. ‘Member of the community’ is an anagram for 'botchery if momentum me,' which of course is the official Klingon designation for all subjects of the Klingon empire.”

Dr. Stone’s suspicions were aroused by the sentiment that all members of the Puget Sound community should have their rights respected. “Puget Sound is a private university. Who has rights here?” She rearranged “safety” and “rights” into “thrifty gases” and “privileges” and “property” into “soppy girlie pervert.” The adage “Soppy girly perverts are thrifty with their gases” was, readers will recall, the first of T. E. Lawrence’s seven pillars of wisdom. Hurrying to the mausoleum of Judge John Minor Wisdom, linguist Stone found on its seventeenth pillar "Refragatio non sufficiens," the Latin for “Resistance is futile.”

“That was the breakthrough,” Dr. Stone enthused. “Klingon designations and Borg imperatives in the university’s honor code? Coincidence? I think not.”

Dr. Stone also recalled that the late Paul Newman is alleged to have said, "24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not." Rosetta thought Paul handsome.

After some Saurean brandy and Romulan baked beans, Dr. Stone was able to piece together the actual code underlying the seemingly meaningless honor code recently promulgated. Substituting for the red-letter oath supra, the honor code cryptically says:

“I am a subject of the University of Puget Sound, which is dedicated to developing hive mentality. I am but a thrall and submit to Puget Sound’s regimen. As a tuition-paying robot, I forfeit all rights and dignity, I lose my individuality in my academic activities, I abandon all pleasures but to please my superiors, and I believe that resistance is feudal.”


In a related development, Dr. Stone’s interment in a Tacoma time capsule has so far been ruled accidental by TPD.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Eating a Symbolic Worm

What is the point of an honor code?


Is the point of an honor code for an institution to indicate its adherence to norms and principles? Did someone doubt the institution’s adherence? Why would anyone, especially the Academic Standards Committee, doubt the institution's honor?

If the point of an honor code is reaffirmation of an institution’s preferring virtues to vices, wouldn’t endorsement of healthy food and sensible diet do students more good than coming out in favor of honor?

Is the point of an honor code largely symbolism? Does one espouse an honor code to posture in favor of virtue – despite the fact that the existence or non-existence of the honor code says nothing about the advocate’s possession of any virtues? Given psychological transference, why shouldn’t we suppose that the faculty most eager to denounce vices are those most familiar with vicious practices? Other than their own experiences as undergraduates, whence do faculty derive their suspicions?

Is the point of an hour code to stem some upsurge in dishonor? If so, exactly what is the theory behind the panacea? Are we to suppose that deviance is increasing because deviants are ignorant of the views of faculty and administrators regarding honor or cheating?

If more than symbolic, an honor code must spell out standards for deviants. Does anyone who has read "The Integrity Principle" or the standards to which students are held imagine that either or both make explicit any standards?

I have students read "The Integrity Principle" and the standards for student conduct each year in Politics and Government 316 -- so students may see how much due process and how many rights they surrendered by attending a private school and especially this private school. The students always conclude that the standards basically say, "If Student Affairs wants to nail you, they always will find a pretext." Last time around, a philosophy major asked whether anyone in the room purported even to understand "The Integrity Principle." He was reassured when no one could say what the author(s) of "The Integrity Principle" might have meant to argue.

In short, students find the standards applicable to students to be so elastic as to be ex post facto laws and "The Integrity Principle" to be incoherent mush. Other than that, the standards of our incipient "Honor Code" are quite explicit.

The content of the NEW! IMPROVED! Honor Code is so nebulous that the Academic Standards Committee incorporated them by citation

"I am a member of the community of the University of Puget Sound, which is dedicated to developing its members’ academic abilities and personal integrity. I accept the responsibilities of my membership in this community and acknowledge that the purpose of this community demands that I conduct myself in accordance with Puget Sound’s policies of Academic and Student Integrity. As a student at the University of Puget Sound, I hereby pledge to conduct myself responsibly and honorably in my academic activities, to be fair, civil, and honest with all members of the Puget Sound community, and to respect their safety, rights, privileges, and property."

How nice to have that all cleared up!

Passing an honor code is like eating a worm. It does little good. It does little harm. It keeps faculty and committees busy. It provides purpose to the aimless and empty. It lets trustees feel useful.

Our New Schedule

Is it too early to see returns on scheduling changes that were supposed to foment professional growth?

I suppose I know the answer, but let me ask anyway.

Colleagues who take Fridays or other weekdays "off" from teaching should soon be producing the professional growth that, we were told, justified the days off. What evidence do we have that "research days" have yielded the anticipated conference papers or published work?

Colleagues who flourished pedagogical reasons for teaching classes over 80-90 minutes had no reason not to show up on non-class days, so they will want to supply some other return to the students or the university from their absences. [I freely grant that the absence of certain colleagues from campus is reward enough in itself.] To refresh your recollection of cover stories, please see "U Stands for Unchained Maladies" 27 October 2007 in "Rump Parliament."

That is why defenders of fewer campus appearances had to rationalize their absences as "research days." I have no doubt that over extended weekends our colleagues were zipping to this library or engaged in that colloquium. So let's see some receipts.

A reviewed manuscript or a sizzling book review might go far toward answering those cynics who supposed that colleagues wanted to sleep in or pursue leisure activities.

If students ask why they cannot meet with their faculty often or at all, it would be pleasant to answer with evidence of the advances in human knowledge that more than make up for personal contact with our faculty. The same is true for colleagues who would prefer their committees not to meet on Thursdays at 8:00 a.m. to accommodate committee members who cannot make meetings on Fridays [ or Mondays ... or Wednesdays].

I see no point in looking at the productivity of recent hires. We have no "before" measures for them.

So let's take faculty who started before 2004. Certainly their CVs before 2004 and their CVs after 2004 should reveal startling increases in productivity by those who had one or more days free from classrooms that they could devote to professional growth. Each faculty member, relative to his or her own productivity before, should be expected to have profited from "research days." Faculty who have not secured days away from campus or hidden behind their office doors should, relative to their own productivity before the change, have exhibited far less growth on average than those who took advantage of "research days."


Is someone in Institutional Research on this matter, or should I undertake it as a hobby?