“Instead of escalating, things were dealt with in a more constructive way,” Berry recalled. “What could have been a brutal punishment turned into a teachable moment.”

At the end of the process, Berry said, “nobody who I felt didn’t deserve to be kicked out” was asked to withdraw.

In the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years, 34.9 percent of academic dishonesty cases resulted in required withdrawals compared to 40.3 percent in the five years before the reform, according to statistics provided to The Crimson.

But in each of those two most recent years, more than 80 cases of academic dishonesty were reported to the Ad Board, almost double the average of 42 cases annually from 2005 to 2010. That jump meant a greater number of students forced to withdraw—an average of 29 students each year, up from 17—despite the availability of less severe penalties.

With local sanctions and course exclusions making up just over 20 percent of all total outcomes of academic dishonesty cases in the past two academic years, it is unclear how fully the reform has changed the Board’s punishment paradigm, or if it will play a role any role all in the current cheating investigation.

Neal declined to comment on whether local sanctions are being considered as a possible punishment in the Government 1310 case.

PEDAGOGICAL OR PUNITIVE?

While some maintain that the Board’s process and punishments serve its educative mission, critics argue that the nature of some of the Board’s punishments generate long-term consequences that make the Board a fundamentally punitive institution.

Harvard takes steps to ensure that student’s time away from the College is productive. Before they can be re-admitted to the College, students are required to hold non-academic employment for at least six months.

Arthur, a student who was forced to temporarily withdraw from the college, wrote in an emailed statement that although he was initially upset about his punishment, he now feels he has benefited from the experience.

“I am enjoying my time off and think that the requirement for 6 months of non-academic work is great,” wrote Arthur, who requested that his name be changed because he did not want it known that he had been forced to withdraw from school. “I don’t have any antipathy for the Ad Board anymore.”

But Michael R. Schneider, a lawyer who has served as a consultant for students facing the Ad Board process, questioned the educative value of such a punishment.

“The Ad Board’s philosophy really understates or ignores the very punitive nature of the sanctions that they impose,” Schneider said, referring to required withdrawals. “The University needs to realize that it is really making it difficult for some really solid students who may have had one lapse in their academic careers.”

Paulette G. Curtis ’92, who served as resident dean of Dunster House from 2002 to 2008, also questioned whether the Board was fundamentally educational. She called that description “a bit imprecise” because it does not “incorporate the full spectrum of intentions.”

Instead, Curtis said, the Board’s mission is twofold: Board members strive to educate students about academic integrity while simultaneously upholding the University’s reputation as an institution that places high value on honest authorship. That second mission, she said, sometimes requires consequences that some may perceive as punitive.