Cheating Yourself Case Analysis

Cheating Yourself Case Analysis
Introduction
Ethics have existed for a long time, governing the code of conduct in almost all professions inclusive of those that fall under the broad umbrella of psychology. The fact that different professions involve different practices therefore necessitate that each profession or field of profession thereof must have a different code of ethics tailored to them. To this effect therefore, the American Psychological Association devised its Ethical Principle of Psychologists and Code of Conduct to govern the practices of various professionals within the field of psychology
. One such field governed by the rules is education and school practice (APA, 2014). This paper analyzes a cases study in which a professor has to decide between punishing two students cheating in exam and applying mercy considering that the student had been driven by a deep sense of fear to cheat in the exam.
Case Summary
Al is a professor of mathematics and computer science teaching remedial algebra. A student, Sarah, who has previously failed in high school math needs this course in order to proceed on with her major. However, Sarah is unable to keep up with the first exam to which the professor, Al, has to monitor her and four other students. Sarah makes it clear that she has never understood math at all. Even after this confession, she knowingly allows her boyfriend to sit for the exams in her place despite the university’s clear directive on cheating. On uncovering the case, Professor Al is in dilemma. He has to choose between justice and mercy. Under the university directive on cheating, he would be in a position to launch an action leading to dishonorable dismissal of the two students from the university with immediate effect. With a week to decide between justice and mercy, the professor is left in an ethical dilemma.
Possible Alternatives for Solving the Dilemma
The two students, Sarah and her friend both need redemption as much as the university needs to uphold its policy on cheating and therefore its reputation in the highly competitive academic atmosphere. The professor however has two choices in order to get this solved: resort to justice and full enforcement of the university law or have mercy for Sarah and her friend since Sarah’s actions were driven by a deep sense of fear.
Alternative One: Professor Al Should Seek Justice
Justice is generally a wide concept. However, Obioha (2011) has pointed out that justice encompasses impartiality, rightness, integrity and fairness. Going by this definition, it is therefore true that the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code is an epitome of what justice entails. This is justified in the Code’s General Principle C which states that all professionals must uphold “accuracy, honesty and truthfulness” (APA, 2014). Additionally, Justice is in its own capacity a general principle in the Code of Ethics as stipulated by APA.  According to APA, justice entails fairness and equal quality in all the undertaking of professionals. This is therefore to imply that working outside the confines of justice in any given situation is not ethical.
Obioha further sums up the concept of justice as the act of conformity with the law (p. 184). From the case study, it is clear that the university has rules and regulations as the law in operation. The rules have made it clear that that cheating is prohibited and that in the event that a student acts contrary to this, he or she can be subject to summary and dishonorable dismissal from the University. The rules within the university are themselves fair, as they bind everyone on the premises. Professor Al, by launching an action against Sarah and her friend, will be abiding by the university laws which according to APA’s general principles, is ethical.
Ramifications of This Option
There are quite a number of consequences that will result from this action should the professor choose it:
Upholding University Reputation- One of the reasons that universities and other learning institutions install rules is to uphold academic integrity. By so doing, the institution’s reputation is guarded. Moreover, the society will put trust in the quality of education at the institution and therefore entrust it with the social responsibility of imparting the students with quality education. Under the APA general principles, Professor Al has the obligation to observe the rules and enforce them to the full capacity.
Increase Student’s Trust in the University Rules and Claim to Integrity-The two students are guilty of cheating. The fact that the action took place in front of the class complicates the matter. By sticking to the university rules and regulations, the students will have the notion that the rules stand for something and should not be taken for granted. As such the perception of the students about the rules will change for the better and they will have a better appreciation of what justice really is.
Academic Destruction of Both Sarah and Her Friend-Should the professor choose to follow the rules, the academic life for both students would be headed for the rocks, and so are their lives if they fully depended on it.
Option Two: Consider Merc as a Way to Resolve the Conflict
Professor Al is also weighed down by his great sense of mercy upon the student, especially because Sarah had admittedly confessed to having fear with regard to the course. This step will thus involve pardoning the two students and avoiding the rules of the university at all. In which case, perhaps the professor will issue a stern warning to the students.
Ramifications of This Option
Compromising and Breaking the University Rules and Regulations- As stated in the case study, the rule is particularly clear on cheating and holds that such students should be dismissed summarily and dishonorably from the institution.
The Academic future of the students is Guaranteed- Under the professor’s great sense of mercy, Sarah and her friend will have their situation pardoned thus making them safe from the rule of the law. As such, they will live to see their academic dreams come true. Dolinko (2006) has pointed out that in appropriate cases, mercy will interfere with the outcome that strict justice would have provided. Mercy therefore can be part of justice, or sometimes require that justice be set aside altogether.
The Appropriate Course of Action and Rationale
Professor Al should bring the students to justice and subject the students to the rule of law. Bibas (2006) has argued that forgiveness in the present day will increase the chances of future crimes receiving leniency too. First, in this case, the cheating and the uncovering of the crime took place in front of everyone in class. As such, every student that was available in the room witnessed the incidence. It therefore follows that quite a good number would have wanted to see how the rule of the law works, and if at all the university rules and regulations really meant anything. In the event that the professor upholds the rules and regulations, then students will refrain from such crimes in future under the guise of various formulated excuses. If this happens, the justice system of the university fails.
Under the APA General Principles, the professor has the obligation to uphold integrity, which in turn entails honesty and truthfulness. Additionally, the professor under the Ethics Code is supposed to endorse fairness and justice (APA, 2014). The professor, under these guidelines is obliged to follow the rules of the law, otherwise he will be breaching the Ethics Code.
The case may also be arguable on the option of mercy, considering that Sarah’s decision to cheat was informed by a great sense of fear. She was genuinely afraid of failing the algebra course since she needed it for her major. In her case, she admittedly confess of her fear. However, she does not wait to see how the professor might be of help before resorting to cheating. Additionally, the two students are aware of the university policy which strictly prohibits cheating, and are aware of (and should prepare for) the consequences that come with this breach. The principle of mercy in this situation is also flawed. Allen (2015) has argued that mercy forms a basis where crimes will not be treated in an equal manner. This means that is other students commit the same crime and are not forgiven, then it would sound unfair. For this therefore, the professor should be consistent with the university rules and regulations since they constitute the Code of ethics as outlined in APA’s guidelines.
Conclusion
The professor should seek justice and treat the students to the rules and regulations of the university. By doing so, he will be upholding the integrity of the university as well as administering justice, which are among the basic principles in the APA guidelines. Sarah, despite the fact that she admitted to being afraid of failing the course did not wait for further assistance from the professor, which further compromises her chance of being forgiven. Additionally, before the crime, the two are aware of the consequences of breaking the rules of the university and choose to do the contrary. Appling mercy would mean other students can still commit the crime and ask for mercy which may compromise on justice and the university academic integrity. The two students should thus face the consequences breaching the university rules.














References
Allen, M. (2015). Locating forgiveness in criminal law and punish.
American Psychological Association. (2014). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3
Bibas, S. (2006). Forgiveness in criminal procedure. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 4, 329.
Dolinko, D. (2006). Some Naive Thoughts About Justice and Mercy. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 4, 349.
Obioha, U. P. (2011). The Nature of Justice. J Soc Sci, 29(2), 183-192.