Punishment Is Not Enough: The Moral Imperative of Responding to Cheating With a Developmental Approach

Abstract

In this article, the authors argue that colleges and universities have an ethical obligation to respond to the problem of cheating in a way that honors higher education’s duty to facilitate students’ moral and civic development. After the authors compare and contrast the punitive versus developmental approach to cheating, they explore the promise and limits of punishment as well as the promise and limits of education. The article ends with a call-to-action for all colleges and universities to make the commitment to move away from the punitive and toward the developmental approach when responding to cheating.

Notes

¹ https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice.

² At least in higher education. Punishment such as “after school suspension” in K–12 also takes many resources, but suspending a student from a university takes little immediate, tangible resources.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tricia Bertram Gallant

^a

Tricia Bertram Gallant ([email protected]) is the director of the Academic Integrity Office at UC San Diego and long-time leader with the International Center for Academic Integrity. Her writings focus on academic integrity and ethical decision making.

Jason M. Stephens

^b

Jason M. Stephens ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the School of Learning, Development and Professional Practice at the University of Auckland. His research focuses on academic dishonesty, motivation, and moral development.