Many law schools have a disciplinary body of students, faculty, or a combination of the two, that determine violations of the law school’s “honor code.” These “honor courts” or “honor boards” are quasi-adjudicatory creatures. The purpose of these boards is a bit of self-governance over academic integrity and some hopes of additional due process beyond that which a faculty member might give to a student. Many schools also require students and faculty to report honor code violations to the honor board; a “duty to snitch,” as it were. Some schools have multiple components to their honor code (e.g., academic and professionalism based).
Regardless, I have questions. And, as I lay out my questions below, I should point out I’m not a higher education law expert. I’m happy to hear from other voices as to why I no longer need to worry.
Does honor board violate due process? Students sometimes are the investigators of honor code violations. I wonder if this violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Often, prosecutors cannot conduct a full investigation of the matter: To do so might create more problems for the accused. As an example, suppose a student witnessed another student continuing to type after time is called on a final exam. Other students might exonerate the accused by noting they were checking email and had already closed the exam. Inquiring might raise the stigma on the accused of the false accusation while exonerating them.
Moreover, the investigators are in the role of prosecutors, and sometimes pressure the accused to settle, much like traditional prosecutors.
I understand the point of honor court is to create due process. But appearance may be different from reality.
Does honor board create a presumption of guilt, even if temporary? The accused may have their grade withheld. That affects things such as law review offers, financial aid, and employment. It sets the student back, even from the mere accusation.
Does honor court violate FERPA? Honor Boards disclose to some members of the student body (the honor court members and the investigators) the disciplinary status of a student. FERPA may also limit the student investigators’ ability to gather more information from other witnesses.
Does the ‘duty to snitch’ create its own set of biases? One of my concerns about the requirement to snitch is that it creates incentives to disrupt. We do not have public data. Conviction rates might be telling one way or another. How many accusers have been charged for false claims? How many accusers are repeat accusers?
Does the ‘duty to snitch’ lead to reduced professionalism and greater injury through gossip? A student accused of an honor code violation may already have had their rights violated the moment the report was made, or even before. Lacking due process (or with post-deprivation process), the accused walks through school with other colleagues who may know (second-hand) of the violation. I wonder how many accusers have been brought before honor code for boasting of reporting an honor code violation. I imagine the number is small. What incentives does that create? Imagine a narcissistic student who simply must be at the center of attention falsely accusing an innocent student who then becomes ostracized by their peers.
Does the revolving door of faculty appointments create biases? Students are unlikely to be repeat players on honor board. Not so for faculty, who will most likely rotate on and off the board and perhaps be in the role of the prosecutor or accuser.
Do the costs of defending an honor board action mean poorer students get harsher sentences? Students may retain lawyers, but one won’t be appointed for them. Retaining a lawyer on a student budget is a costly endeavor, and poorer students may be at a strong disadvantage in defending their innocence. Does that lead students of limited means faced with an honor board adjudication to have harsher penalties? Higher conviction rates?
Are the penalties issued consistently applied? Do popular students get more lenient outcomes? That may depend on which professor is reporting as well. And some penalties may exist regardless of conviction. Does the accused have a duty to report that they were brought before the school’s honor board when applying for the bar? The answer is, very probably.
What about the ‘Rule of Lenity’? In criminal proceedings, ambiguously constructed criminal statutes are not (in theory) used to penalize defendants. Not so in honor board! While faculty may think their plagiarism standards are clear and concise, they aren’t. And that, combined with a focus on punishment and not on education, may lead to unfortunate outcomes.
What are the rules of evidence? Is hearsay admissible? Is there an opportunity for the accused to fully cross-examine the accuser? To the extent that honor boards use evidence a court would ordinarily exclude, honor boards are not conveying the best face of legal educators.
What are the rules of recusal? Law schools are sometimes small enough where everyone knows everyone. At what point are prosecutors and honor board members required to recuse themselves? What if the honor board member is a faculty member who gave the accused a “C.” Are they more likely to believe the allegations? I also wonder about the potential conflict of interest that arises from a student seeking to secure conviction to impress faculty or alter their class rank.
Are honor boards, when subject to litigation, represented by university counsel? There have been discussions within law schools as to the degree to which university counsel will represent faculty and students. Groups have previous sued law reviews, for example, and I imagine the question a university counsel might ask is whether an honor board is part of the university function. Without clear guidance, that leaves many faculty and students exposed to risk and liability. Recently an accusation of AI misuse has become the subject of a 13-count federal lawsuit against a university. Other cases have implicated honor boards, and, while those suits typically do not fare well, the effect can still be stressful on participants. Assuming the board got the result right.
What is the standard for conviction? Is the standard beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s not required, because honor boards aren’t criminal courts. Or is the standard for conviction merely preponderance of the evidence? The standard may lead to a great degree of false positives, particularly when combined with lax rules of evidence.
Are grounds for appeal weak? How does a student appeal the decision of an honor board? Typically, the appeal is to a higher-ranked administrator such as the dean and potentially to a provost. Most likely those are rubber stamps. The compounding of those stamps might mean a challenge on the grounds the board’s action was arbitrary and capricious (informal adjudication standard) is tricky. Other grounds, such as breach of contract, is similarly unlikely to produce results for the falsely accused. Even in state universities, a due process claim raises challenges, including what is the deprivation alleged. And the board itself weighs as a positive in terms of the student’s due process.
Beyond that, what is the record for appeal at the student’s disposal? Is the decision written and on the record as a whole or merely a checked box or even oral?
Is there even an injury? You could conceive of a case in which there isn’t even an injury to “honor.” A student who paraphrases an author once without attribution but cited to the article multiple times elsewhere might be one example. A system failure (like what happens with bar exam software) is also ripe for such issues.
Was the action intentional or negligent? Perhaps it might matter in the interests of justice whether the honor code violation was deliberate, intentional, and planned versus something more inadvertent. Is the honor board well suited to determine that difference?
Will AI make this worse? One might envision the AI hunt will disproportionately affect individuals who are protected under the ADA. Specifically, recent empirical literature suggests that AI detection software creates false positives for students with autism. The mere accusation may create harms for the students and injury. I wonder whether honor boards might not be well suited to walk the line between the ADA and AI.
Do we have enough data? Faculties ought to require their honor boards to disclose data (class rank of accuser, rank of accused, race of accuser, race of accused, gender of accuser, gender of accused, disabilities of accused, number of times faculty member has accused and data on who they’ve accused). There is at least some anecdotal evidence that schools do not apply rules even-handedly.
These are some of the questions that come to my mind. And I’m not sure faculty who have implemented these policies for ages have thought about the answers to these questions in a systematic fashion.
Some other reading (apart from linked articles embedded above):
Steven K. Berenson, What Should Law School Student Conduct Codes Do?, 38 Akron L. Rev. 803 (2005).
Curtis J. Berger & Vivian Berger, Academic Discipline: A Guide to Fair Process for the University Student, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 289 (1999).
Sarah Ann Bassler, Public Access to Law School Honor Code Proceedings, 15 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 207 (2001).
Anna G. Bobrow, Restoring Honor: Ending Racial Disparities in University Honor Systems, 106 Va. L. Rev. Online 47 (2020).
Nicola A. Boothe-Perry, Enforcement of Law Schools’ Non-Academic Honor Codes: A Necessary Step Towards Professionalism?, 89 Neb. L. Rev. 634 (2011).
Jennifer N. Buchanan & Joseph C. Beckham, A Comprehensive Academic Honor Policy for Students: Ensuring Due Process, Promoting Academic Integrity, and Involving Faculty, 33 J.C. & U.L. 97 (2006).
Kimberly C. Carlos, The Future of Law School Honor Codes: Guidelines for Creating and Implementing Effective Honor Codes, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 937 (1997).
Andrea A. Curcio, Alexis Martinez, Are Discipline Code Proceedings Another Example of Racial Disparities in Legal Education?, 22 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 1 (2022).
Joanmarie Ilaria Davoli, We Need to Talk, 33 Cath. U.J.L. & Tech. 117 (2025).
Larry A. DiMatteo & Don Wiesner, Academic Honor Codes: A Legal and Ethical Analysis, 19 S. Ill. U. L.J. 49 (1994).
Christopher M. Hartley, Forming A More Perfect Honor System: Why the Trend of over-Legalizing Academic Honor Systems Must Be Reversed, 70 Cath. U. L. Rev. 599 (2021).
Terri LeClercq, Failure to Teach: Due Process and Law School Plagiarism, 49 J. Legal Educ. 236 (1999).
Meredith C. Manuel, Snitches Get Stitches: Ditching the Toleration Clause in Law School Honor Codes, 33 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 703 (2020).
Aishaah R. Reed, M.A.Ed., Opportunities for Virginia Law Schools to Implement Restorative Justice Approaches in the Honor Code System, 23 Rich. Pub. Int. L. Rev. 381 (2020)
LawProfBlawg is an anonymous law professor. Follow him on X/Twitter/whatever (@lawprofblawg). He’s also on BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads depending on his mood. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com. The views of this blog post do not represent the views of his employer, his employer’s government, his Dean, his colleagues, or his family.
The post Honor Courts, Boards, And Academic Dishonesty appeared first on Above the Law.
Recent Comments