Peter F. Lake '81, a professor at Stetson University College of Law who specializes in higher education law, said that student members of judicial boards need to be trained extensively, something that could present a challenge during implementation.

“One of the big problems is just trying to manage the training and consistency issues,” Lake said, adding that student members could bring with them possible conflicts of interest and bias and risk being retaliated against after convicting a peer. Former Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 added that he worries that student members of the board would be “harsher” than administrators.

Even after student members of the board are trained, the honor code’s adoption might spur another logistical challenge, according to outside experts, in the form of an increased academic dishonesty caseload.

Gary Pavela, a former director of academic integrity at Syracuse University who has consulted other colleges on integrity issues, said that Harvard should have the administrative infrastructure in place to handle a “sharp increase” in the number of reported academic integrity infractions after the honor code becomes policy. When he worked at the University of Maryland during the adoption of its honor code, Pavela said the number of reported cases increased as faculty reported at a higher rate.

Similarly, Ellison said that he expects the College to see a spike in reported infractions after the honor code’s adoption because the policy will increase faculty focus on integrity issues. Harris wrote in an email that it “seems hazardous to offer any guess” as to the possibility of an increase.

AN APATHETIC SHIFT

Implementers of the proposed honor code may face a broader obstacle than facilitating a change in the College’s disciplinary system. Not only will they have to convince some apathetic faculty members and students that an honor code is necessary for the community, but also that their enthusiasm is essential to the policy’s success.

Supporters of the honor code have emphasized that community buy-in will be key to successfully creating a culture shift at the College and increasing student and faculty focus on the integrity issues emphasized in the policy. Those involved in shaping the honor code have suggested that starting more formalized conversations about academic integrity throughout undergraduates’ four years at Harvard would help spur that support among students.

Terah E. Lyons ’14, a student member of the Academic Integrity Committee who was one of several members to draft the proposal, said that faculty members and others who have criticisms of the policy “certainly have legitimacy in voicing it.” Still, she added, “in implementing something like this, optimism really is the key to success.”

If initial reaction to the proposed honor code is any indication, the Academic Integrity Committee may find itself hard-pressed to inculcate a high level of enthusiasm around the honor code.

Undergraduate attendance at the four feedback sessions on a draft of the honor code held at the beginning of the semester was low. The largest of the four meetings, held in Kirkland House, drew less attendance from students than the number of individuals who sit on the Academic Integrity Committee, while only two students not involved in the committee attended a session held in Cabot House.

Undergraduate Council President Gus A. Mayopoulos ’15, who attended a high school with an honor code, said a minority of students are “very passionate” about the honor code proposal, either for or against it.

“I think the majority of students don’t really care about it,” Mayopoulos said. “I think even when the honor code is enacted, which I hope it will be, I think still the majority of students won’t care about it.” He maintained that students’ indifference is for the best because it indicates that most are not cheating and therefore are less affected by the regulations.

Students are not the only members of the community apathetic towards the possibility of the College’s first honor code, as faculty discussion of the proposal has been limited in both public and private conversations. At multiple faculty meetings this semester when the proposal was under discussion, Harris fielded only a handful of questions on the code.

According to government professor Harvey C. Mansfield ’53, although faculty care deeply about academic integrity, the specific proposal is “nothing to write home about.”