Chapter I
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

THE EE 304 CHEATING INCIDENT
Those cadets who collaborated on the EE 304 examination knew beyond any doubt that such action was prohibited. Although they may not have believed that their conduct made them morally corrupt or dishonorable, they knew it was wrong. Their action cannot be excused. But to place full blame on these cadets is to ignore institutional factors which contributed significantly to such a "choice." inadequacies in the Honor System, in the Academy environment which was to have supported this System, and in the administration of the EE 304 examination combined to make a cheating incident practically inevitable.
A. Honor System
Perhaps the most fundamental of the Honor System's inadequacies has been the expansion of the Code well beyond its intended purpose. Cadets have been found guilty for isolated conduct which cannot fairly be characterized as having made them dishonorable. Recently, for example, a cadet who reported himself for stating that he had done 20 sit-ups, when in fact he had done only 18, was found guilty of violating the Honor Code. A similar incident had occurred in 1970. in July of 1974, a new cadet who reported himself for telling his squad leader, who "did not remember the particular incident," that he had shaved, when in fact he had not, was separated. In 1975, a third classman was found guilty by the Cadet Honor Committee of "intentionally deceiving" in that "he wore a second class dress coat to a motion picture" during the week (a regulation prohibited third classmen from attending weeknight movies).
If these cases were aberrations, our concerns would not be as great. They are, however, representative of a significant number of the approximately 180 non-EE 304 cases which have resulted in findings of guilt by the respective Cadet Honor Committees during the 1970s. The Honor Code too frequently has been interpreted and taught in a technical, highly legalistic fashion. As a result, the Honor Code's basic purpose--insuring that our military leaders are honorable men and women--has been obscured.
One of the more demoralizing shortcomings of the Honor System has been confusion and inconsistency in the interpretation and application of the Honor Code. There is evidence of a critical lack of agreement on these matters among the administration, tactical staff, faculty, Honor Committee, cadets, and alumni. For example, actions such as "bed stuffing," covering windows with blankets after "lights out," and keeping liquor in hair tonic bottles have at times been considered honor violations--depending upon who is construing the Honor Code. As an Academy Study Group noted, "Operational interpretations of the Honor Code vary widely and are modified frequently without the benefit of any regularized process...."
Far from being a statement of immutable principles, the Honor Code as defined has become a compendium of changing rules. The body which has been entrusted with the primary responsibility for interpreting and applying the Code--the Honor Committee--annually changes its leadership, thereby precluding development of a stabilizing institutional memory.
Equally troublesome is the fact that the Honor Code has been exploited as a means of enforcing regulations--a view shared by 76 percent of the Cadet Corps in 1974. Cadets and officers have taken the shortcut of placing a cadet on his honor rather than themselves assuming necessary responsibility for the enforcement of regulations. Consequently, the Honor Code, by merging with the extensive Academy regulations, has lost much of its unique meaning. It has become part of the "system to be beaten."
A rigid and narrow interpretation of what constitutes nontoleration has also been detrimental to the Honor System. Cadets who become aware of honor violations have no legitimate option other than to report the violator and to cause his separation with the possibility of enlisted service. As already suggested, this sole option imposes demands on many cadets which they are unwilling to accept. Consequently, toleration has become widespread. Indeed, in 1974, 73 percent of the Corps stated that they would not report a good friend for a possible honor violation. Toleration weakens the Honor System by depriving it of a major element of enforcement. Furthermore, since the tolerator, in the eyes of the Honor Code, is as guilty as the violator, future violations by tolerators become more likely. In 1967 the Superintendent's Honor Review Committee, a group of 3 Academy officers charged with monitoring the Honor Code and System, prophetically advised the Superintendent:
"The cadets interviewed, as well as this Committee, are in agreement that any 'cheating' scandal would find its beginning in a 'toleration' situation, i.e., a cadet would observe a friend or roommate cheating but because of their closeness would not report the incident. From that point a vicious chain would gradually find its way to other cadets."
Closely related to the growth of toleration has been the mandatory sanction of separation for all honor violations. The single sanction assumes that a cadet becomes instantaneously honorable upon entering the Academy; that all violations of the Honor Code are of equal gravity; and that all violators are of equal culpability. This has contributed significantly to the breakdown of nontoleration, to questionable Cadet Honor Board acquittals by a single negative vote, and, in some cases, to questionable reversals by reviewing authorities. In every other aspect of Academy life, the cadet is expected to mature and develop. Only in matters of honor has a plebe been expected to meet the same standard as a first classman.
Recognizing these problems, in early 1976, a majority of the Corps, but less than the required two-thirds, supported the end of the single sanction. Recently, after the EE 304 crisis, the Corps again voted on a proposal to eliminate mandatory separation. The proposal failed to carry by less than 1 percent. The Commission believes that Cadet Honor Boards and reviewing authorities should have available to them a range of other actions to recommend in addition to separation, including, for example, suspension, probation, or course failure.
Other shortcomings may be seen in the Cadet Honor Committee. Comprised of a limited number of first and second classmen, the Committee has been charged with almost exclusive responsibility for insuring the effectiveness of the Honor System. Some Honor Representatives have been considered overly zealous; others have been "cool-on-honor," a phrase denoting a lax attitude toward the Honor Code and System. The granting of cadet rank to the Honor Committee leaders has identified the Committee with the cadet chain of command and, therefore, the duty to enforce regulations. Such rank, we believe, is an unnecessary accompaniment to service on the Committee. By the Fall of 1974 only 41 percent of the Corps believed that the Honor Committee accurately reflected the Corps' attitude about the Honor System.
Many cadets have felt that the Honor Committee is part of the structure that has taken away "their" Honor Code. Significant changes in the Honor System have, in some instances, been made without the knowledge and approval of the Corps of Cadets. Furthermore, the dubious 11-1 acquittals, the lack of convictions for toleration, the absence of fundamental fairness in some Honor Board proceedings, and the rare convictions of first classmen have resulted in the perception of many cadets that the Honor System has been hypocritical, corrupt, and unfair.
The validity of this view was acknowledged by the current Cadet Honor Committee when it proposed several changes which were recently adopted by the Corps. The "due process" hearing is now at the Cadet Honor Board level; the Officer Board has been eliminated; a less than unanimous vote is required for a finding of guilty; and cadets other than Honor Representatives will participate in the investigation and adjudication of honor violations. We have some reservations about the specifics of these changes; however, we agree with their purpose.
Another problem has been the failure of Academy officers to participate fully in the Honor System. Responsibility for honor education, for example, has been placed almost completely in the hands of the Cadet Honor Committee; in 1974 less than 1 percent of the Corps believed that they had gained most of their knowledge about the Honor Code and System from tactical officers and professors. The Academic Department has made little effort in the curriculum to assist cadets in discerning and coping with the moral dilemmas that inevitably confront individuals in general and military officers in particular.
Because of preoccupation with the notion that reform must be initiated by the Corps if the Honor Code and System are to be accepted, the Academy had not assumed sufficient responsibility for insuring that needed changes were effected. The role of the Academy's officers had largely been confined to reporting honor violations or reviewing Cadet Honor Board adjudications.
The lack of officer involvement in the Honor System is consistent with the Academy's apparent policy of placing more responsibility on the cadets themselves in every aspect of cadet life. This lack of involvement contributed to the belief that the Honor Code and System belong exclusively or primarily to the cadets and that any participation by officers constituted interference. This, in turn, generated cadet antagonism when decisions by the Superintendent and Officer Boards differed from Cadet Honor Committee determinations.
These inadequacies have combined to foster cadet cynicism toward and estrangement from the Honor System, thereby weakening the System itself. There has developed within the Corps what has been referred to as a "cool-on-honor" subculture--a largely unorganized group of cadets who justify certain honor violations and "beating" the Honor System. This subculture and its accompanying peer pressure have influenced many additional cadets to commit honor violations. In some instances the Academy's Leadership Evaluation System has been used by cadets to enforce at least toleration of the subculture. With each violation, the subculture grew and its influence became more formidable.
B. Academy Environment
The inadequacies in the Honor System cannot be viewed in isolation. if the System is to operate effectively, the total setting must be supportive. Factors such as the rapid growth in Corps size from 2,500 in 1964 to its current strength of 4,400, instability caused by the modification of some Academy traditions, and certain societal attitudes and turmoil may have militated against this support. While we recognize the influence of these factors, we believe other institutional problems were the primary causes of the erosion of respect for the Honor System.
There has, for example, been serious disagreement over the proper role of education in the mission of the Academy: Should West Point train combat leaders for immediate service in junior ranks, or should it provide the fundamental education and study to allow graduates (a) to assimilate quickly the special skills required for junior officer service in the basic branches of the Army, and (b) after experience and further study, to provide the senior military leadership on which the nation depends for its security. We are convinced that the acquisition of a college education within a military environment must, during the academic year, have first call on the time and energies of each cadet; military training should be concentrated in the summer months. The failure of Academy constituencies to agree on the relative importance of the educational component of the mission has hindered the development of an academic atmosphere which discourages dishonesty.
Development of such an atmosphere has also been impeded by the failure to determine priorities among competing claims on cadets' time. Prior to curriculum changes adopted this Fall, cadets needed far more credit hours to graduate than are required by most institutions of higher education. The academic pressures have been intensified by the increase, during the academic year, of military and physical training and cadet leadership responsibilities. In excess of two-thirds of the cadets surveyed in 1975 stated that they did not have sufficient time to satisfy overall demands. While cadets may not have been overworked, they clearly have been overscheduled. The result, as well described by a recent honor graduate, has been that: "In the present West Point system, mediocrity is not a choice for it is the sole alternative. It is not surprising that in an atmosphere of nonstop running and meeting deadlines that conformity and mere adequacy march to the forefront hand-in-hand."
The Academy has not been structured in such a way as to encourage academic excellence. Superintendents have often been selected primarily for their military leadership abilities; because of their limited tour length, they have frequently not had the opportunity to become effective educational leaders. Furthermore, Superintendents have not, in most cases, been given an adequate voice in the selection of other Academy leaders such as the Dean, the Commandant, and members of the Academic Board. Nor has the Academy had the benefit of the continuing advice provided most institutions of higher education by their boards of trustees.
Equally troublesome has been the failure to develop an appropriate state of discipline. In recent years, the Academy has delegated much of the authority for supervising cadets to the cadet chain of command. This has had the effect not only of increasing the time pressures on some cadets, but also of weakening the state of discipline. Confusion over the proper role of the company tactical officer has further contributed to this problem. By law, the tactical officer is the company commander. While all cadets and officers have some responsibility for discipline, the tactical officer must ensure that the Academy's high standards of discipline are met.
Finally, adherence to the Honor Code is more difficult when cadets perceive dishonesty around them. The standards of the Academy have appropriately been set at a level much higher than the lowest common denominator of society at large and, for that matter, of the "real Army."
While the so-called "double standard" can be disillusioning, its existence must be acknowledged. West Point, however, has always and must continue to set the standards for the Army. It is of utmost importance that every officer at the Academy lead by example; they, in particular, must aspire to the high ideals of the Honor Code if the cadets are to do so. The degree to which Academy officers at different echelons have, in fact, demonstrated such leadership is open to question. Clearly, cadets have perceived failure on the part of some.
C. The EE 304 Examination
The nature of EE 304 as well as the method of administering the take-home examination contributed, perhaps most directly, to the occurrence and magnitude of the cheating incident.
In our opinion, allowing 823 cadets 2 weeks to solve an out-of-class examination in a course for which the relevance had not been established by the Department and which was almost universally disdained by cadets as irrelevant and "spec and dump" (memorize and forget) placed unwise and unnecessary temptation before each cadet. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that, throughout the EE 304 course, cadets had been allowed and even encouraged to collaborate on home-study problems similar to that of the March 3 and 4 examination. Indeed, not only was one such problem due on the same day, but the second part of the examination also permitted collaboration. It became common practice for cadets--who had difficulty with their problems or who simply did not have the time or motivation to complete them--to go to the room of an individual known to be proficient in Electrical Engineering, take his EE notebook, and extract the needed information. Such action, which inevitably increased dependency on collaboration, had never been considered a violation of the Honor Code or, for that matter, any regulation.
We agree with the statement of a former Commandant of Cadets who advised the Commission:
"In my view the [Electrical Engineering] Department invited violations of the Code by the manner in which it administered EE 304. At the very least, it placed the cadets under great pressure, needlessly."
Implicitly acknowledging the shortcomings of the EE 304 pedagogy, the Academy changed the rules for take-home assignments shortly after the EE 304 incident. Henceforth, cadets will be allowed to seek assistance, provided its nature and extent are clearly indicated on the paper. We are, however, troubled by the fact that some academic authorities, despite the change, see nothing wrong in the manner the EE 304 examination was administered.

Chapter II
QUESTIONS

1. What were the causative and contributing factors underlying the recent Electrical Engineering 304 cheating incident?
2. Does the Honor Code and System impose a realistic and reasonable set of standards?
3. Is the Honor Code accepted by cadets as a way of life or do cadets adhere to it merely because of the consequences of a violation?
4. Are high standards of moral and ethical conduct emphasized in all aspects of cadet life?
5. Are the pressures on cadets generated by the academic, athletic, and military training at the Academy realistic and do they contribute effectively to the mission of the Academy?
6. Does the institution in its structure, its policies and doctrine, and in its operation appropriately support the Cadet Honor Code and System?
7. Is there sufficient emphasis and effectiveness in formal instruction on honor matters at the Academy?

Chapter IV
DISCUSSION
Despite support for the ideals of the Honor Code, cadet compliance with the Honor Code, by the Spring of 1976, had become disturbingly lax.
The number of cadets who have resigned or otherwise been separated in connection with the EE 304 incident, 134 cadets as of December 6, 1976, does not, in our opinion, reveal the true extent of honor violations in EE 304. The Commission is convinced that many cadets who either collaborated or tolerated collaboration on the EE 304 take-home examination have not been detected or punished. The Commission is equally persuaded that scores of other violations of the Honor Code have gone undetected or unpunished and that, during recent years, a substantial number of cadets have been involved in dishonesty, toleration, and, on occasion, misconduct as honor representatives.
We agree with the remarks of Academy officers who served on the internal Review Panel or Officer Boards: "Cheating was not confined to EE 304 nor to the Class of 1977 . . . . [S]ufficient evidence was forthcoming that there were wide scale incidents involving academic cheating in other courses at other times."
* * *
"The Class of '77 is not unique.... [C]ollaboration and toleration are common at West Point. Undoubtedly other classes have been, and still are involved in cheating on a scale at least equal to ’77."
* * *
"[W]e are seeing only the tip of the cheating iceberg."
* * *
"[T]estimony... indicates that cadet cheating on the EE 304 problem is only a small corner of the total problem.... [C]heating on a large scale has gone on before in previous classes...." * * *
"[P]rior to serving on an Officer Board, I was personally convinced that reports of widespread cheating were little more then legally useful propaganda, perpetrated by clever defense lawyers. I no longer believe that to be the case."
We also agree with the Cadet Honor Committee's current Vice Chairman for Investigations, who recently informed the Corps of Cadets:
"There have been cases of board fixing that can be documented, not only for the past year but for the past several years. For example, during the Electrical Engineering controversy this past summer, 30 of the 35 cadets who were found guilty by Officer Boards were previously found not guilty by the Cadet Honor Committee. Testimony arising out of the Officer Boards and the Internal Review Panel this summer has indicated that many of these were tampered with at the Honor Committee Board level. One cadet found guilty in the EE 304 controversy had previously been exonerated by 8 Cadet Honor Boards in his cadet career. Strong evidence, also from the Internal Review Panel, and from the Officer Boards held over the summer, indicates that he was protected by friends on the Honor Committee. Last year 16 first classmen were forwarded to full Honor Boards, yet not one was found guilty by his peers on the 1976 Honor Committee. One was found guilty by the 1977 Honor Committee. However, in contrast to those statistics, last year 20 fourth classmen were forwarded to full Honor Boards and of these 16 were found guilty by the 1977 and 1976 Honor Committees. Now this suggests that if not board tampering that there may be just an unwillingness for a cadet to find his peer guilty, if not it does demonstrate gross inadequacies existing in the system...." (Emphasis added) it is distressingly apparent to the Commission that the Honor System, the means by which the Code is taught, supervised and enforced, had indeed become grossly inadequate by the Spring of 1976.
Even more disturbing is that this inadequacy was known to Academy leadership well before EE 304, but no decisive action was taken. In July of 1974, the departing Superintendent of the Academy provided the incoming Superintendent with a report concerning honor at West Point. The report, which had been prepared earlier by former faculty members, concluded that the Honor System was "in trouble" and that its reclaiming would be a "formidable task." This conclusion was fully supported in a 1975 Academy study which revealed widespread disaffection with the Honor System. Nevertheless, some Academy officials persisted, even after the EE 304 incident, in publicly proclaiming the health of the Honor System.

Chapter V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. What were the causative and contributing factors underlying the recent Electrical Engineering 304 cheating incident?
The EE 304 incident resulted from a progressive decay in individual respect for and adherence to the Honor Code. While specific conditions involving the nature of EE 304 and the administration of the examination are directly responsible for the occurrence and magnitude of the incident, underlying institutional deficiencies, including those related specifically to the Honor Code and System, contributed to the general conditions making it more likely that an incident of this kind would take place.
2. Does the Honor Code and System impose a realistic and reasonable set of standards?
The Honor Code establishes a set of standards for integrity and self-discipline that should be the constant objective of every honorable person. It is the belief of many cadets that they can adhere and are in fact adhering to the Honor Code. In contrast, the Honor System, as presently interpreted and administered, is neither realistic nor reasonable.
3. Is the Honor Code accepted by cadets as a way of life or do cadets adhere to it merely because of the consequences of a violation?
It is impossible to answer the question as to all cadets. Some cadets do adhere to the Code because they genuinely accept it. Some do so because they fear the consequences of a violation. Some comply for a combination of these reasons. Other cadets, at least until the EE 304 incident, neither complied fully with the Code nor believed that the System gave them any real cause to fear the consequences of a violation.
4. Are high standards of moral and ethical conduct emphasized in all aspects of cadet life?
High standards of moral and ethical conduct are expected of all cadets at West Point. However, the core curriculum does not provide an educational basis for a cadet to develop an understanding of ethical conduct. In this sense, high standards of moral and ethical conduct are not appropriately emphasized.
5. Are the pressures on cadets generated by the academic, athletic, and military training at the Academy realistic and do they contribute effectively to the mission of the Academy?
The combination of academic study, athletics, and military training (including cadet chain of command duties) at the Academy imposes unrealistically heavy pressures on many cadets. There is at present no effective means of establishing priorities among the departments competing for cadet time.
6. Is the ethical base adequately provided for cadets to develop a strong sense of integrity, exclusive of the Honor Code and System? No.
7. Does the institution in its structure, its policies and doctrine, and in its operation appropriately support the Cadet Honor Code and System?
No. The Honor Code belongs to every person who values personal integrity. The entire institution must take a strong role in the development of the honor concept, the implementation of Honor System procedures, and the ultimate review of the exercise of cadet responsibilities. Recent history demonstrates that, in some respects, the Academy by its structure, policies, and doctrine has not appropriately supported the Honor Code and System. 8. Is there sufficient emphasis and effectiveness in formal instruction on honor matters at the Academy?
No. Honor instruction to the extent it exists has been almost totally handled by the Cadet Honor Committee. There must be instruction in ethics introduced into the core curriculum, to provide a base for continuing instruction in honor matters.

THE HONOR CODE
"A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."
The Commission fully supports the Honor Code as a simple statement of essential standards of integrity to which every honorable person aspires. We believe that individuals are not born with honor and that its attainment is an ongoing educational process. Some are unable to accept and assimilate these values as rapidly and to as great a degree as others. Nonetheless, these ideals should be inculcated into every cadet at the United States Military Academy. It is critically important that all leaders in whom the people confer both trust and power achieve the highest degree of personal integrity.
We have been impressed by the importance attached to the Honor Code by cadets with whom we have spoken. They generally agree that the Code, insofar as it proscribes lying, stealing, and cheating, is sound and that it espouses ethical principles in which they have the strongest personal belief. Indeed, most cadets treasure the Honor Code. Many of those implicated in the Electrical Engineering 304 (EE 304) incident express support for its ideals.
One aspect of the Honor Code is not fully supported--the nontoleration clause, which as now interpreted requires a cadet to report and thereby cause the separation of another cadet for an honor violation. Many individuals are reluctant to place duty to community over loyalty to friends. This dilemma is particularly acute at West Point, where loyalty to friends is emphasized in other aspects of Academy life. Cadets generally recognize, however, that if the Honor Code is to have any meaning, they cannot ignore the dishonorable acts of others; some action on their part, to express disapproval of honor violations, is necessary. In this sense, the Commission fully supports the principle embodied in the nontoleration clause.

RECOMMENDATION 1. A permanent and independent advisory board should be established to provide the continuing assistance that most institutions of higher education receive from their boards of trustees. Such a board, established by the Secretary of the Army, should (1) be non-political; (2) include members who recognize the proper mission of the Academy; (3) convene often enough to insure current knowledge of the institution; and (4) report to the Secretary of the Army its observations and recommendations. 2. The West Point mission statement should be revised to insure that everyone understands the importance of education in the mission of the Academy. The acquisition of a quality college education within a military environment must have first call during the academic year on the time and energies of a cadet. Everyone must understand that this is the primary mission of the Academy from September to June. Military training should be concentrated in the summer months. 3. The Superintendent should have responsibility for all aspects of the internal administration of the Academy, including resolving the competing demands made by subordinate authorities upon individual cadets. His selection should be based upon his interest in education and a demonstrated ability to provide educational and military leadership. He should be assigned to the Academy for a minimum of 5 years and should be consulted as to the selection and length of service of the Commandant of Cadets and Dean of the Academic Board. 4. Permanent professors should serve on active duty for no more than 30 years, unless requested to continue on a term basis by the Superintendent with the approval of the Secretary of the Army. 5. The Professor of Physical Education should be a member of the Academic Board. 6. The Office of Military Leadership, a department concerned in large part with providing academic instruction in behavioral sciences, should be transferred to the Academic Department. The Director of that Office should be a member of the Academic Board. 7. There should be an expansion of programs which bring outside viewpoints to the Academy, e.g., visiting professors to and from the Academy. 8. The Academy must reaffirm the role of the tactical officer as a company commander and ensure that this role is uniformly adhered to throughout the Tactical Department. 9. Tactical officers should be selected from officers who have completed Command and General Staff College or equivalent education. 10. The Leadership Evaluation System should be reviewed to determine whether it is a constructive force in the cadets' leadership development. 11. The Honor Code should be retained in its present form: A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." 12. The nontoleration clause should be retained. However, a cadet should have options in addition to reporting an honor violation. A cadet who perceives a violation must counsel, warn, or report the violator. Some action is required, as distinguished from tacit acquiescence. 13. Sanctions other than dismissal should be authorized for violations of the Honor Code. The Cadet Honor Committee and reviewing authorities should be authorized to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine an appropriate penalty. Any recommendation less than separation should be fully justified. Cadets who are separated should not be required to serve on active duty as a result of their separation.

Chapter VI
REFERENCE