We are sure that the recent action of the Faculty in accepting the proposals contained in the report of the Committee on Discipline, and thereby substituting a new form of procedure for that of posting the names of men handing in written work not their own, will meet with the general approval of the undergraduates. From the first, student opinion has been dead against posting, because (as we brought out editorially over a year ago) it is felt that while the power of the Faculty to summarily eject a man for dishonesty is a just one, it can hardly be said to be within the prerogative of any college administrative body to inflict a punishment which might affect a man's future prospects.
The Faculty have been influenced in their recent action by several reasons. In the first place, within that body itself there has never been anything approaching unanimity on the question of posting, and the majority who have favored such procedure, although still convinced of the righteousness of their cause, now feel that on questions of dealing with dishonesty there should be, whatever the conflicting feeling outside, perfect harmony within the Faculty. Secondly it is their opinion that although the moral effect of the possibility of such a punishment as possing has thus far justified its adoption, it is so extreme a punishment that in future the tendency might be to resort to it so seldom that much of its moral effectiveness might be lost. Finally, nearly all agree that the new method promises well.
To us it seems to have two main recommendations. In providing for punishment by suspension or dismissal at the discretion of the Administrative Board or the Faculty, and further in very flagrant cases where the interests of the University or of the community require it, for the disclosure of the offender's name, it promises to prove a directly preventive cure for cheating. Furthermore, the provision that an instructor in any course where cheating has been attempted shall make an official statement before his class of the offense and the penalty without the name of the offender, and shall further inform them that both the offence and the offender are known by the members of the Faculty, we believe will indirectly justify itself. The greater part of cheating in written work is due to thoughtlessness rather than to any vicious instinct, and a method of appealing to the better side of individuals is sure to be effective.