The Presbyterian College Writing Center provided English Department students the first opportunity for what Muriel Harris calls "collaboration in learning about writing," which "involves interaction between writer and reader to help the writer improve her own abilities and produce her own text" ("Collaboration" 370). While previous composition students wrote essays in class, now students work on out-of-class papers in the writing center. However, the English Department considers it an Honor Code violation for students to allow anyone else to read a paper, and faculty members place this interpretation in their syllabi.

Our English Department's attitude toward outside readers is not unusual. Literature departments worry about plagiarism "of style and text structure, in contrast to departments of science and social science, who tend to focus primarily on the originality of an idea" (Clark and Healy 33). Other departments encourage students to have outside readers for their papers. Collaboration among colleagues is common to faculty, and few "worry about the ethics of such assistance" (Clark 3). Many faculty members acknowledge such assistance with "graceful notes of appreciation in journal articles and books" (Harris 370). Students give each other informal support by reading each other's drafts in residence halls and libraries, providing a wide variety of help from reader response to editorial work. Unlike their professors, however, students "downplay public recognition of informal collaboration" (Harris 370).

The writing center community struggles with the question of ethics. Joseph Munch at Southwestern University concludes that a writing center should not be viewed as a threat to an honor code, "[a]ssuming that every consultation follows standard writing center philosophies" and "uphold[s] honor code principles of honesty and integrity" (15). Writing center administrators argue that writing center responses are more ethical than those of just any outside reader because of the procedures and methods. Harris argues that a "situation where there is learning going on is fine" but that "when there is no attempt to make the interaction a learning situation, it's drifting into unethical behavior" ("Re: Writing Center ethics").

Authorities outside the writing center field agree. In The New York Times Magazine Ethicist column, Randy Cohen writes about a student who has received help on papers from her English professor father. Cohen says, "If he is helping her become a better writer, that's a fine thing" (52). But Cohen grants that colleges could restrict a writer's seeking of outside help "for take-home tests or other exercises meant to evaluate her skills" and suggests that the student check with her professor (52).

What do PC faculty and students, the two groups who enforce our Honor Code, think about the ethics of help on papers? This fall writing center staff surveyed 46 faculty members and 51 seniors to determine their attitudes.

• Presbyterian College faculty comment on drafts of papers.
  The overwhelming majority of our faculty sample (87 percent) said they respond to drafts of papers before the final grading, either with oral or written comments.
  
• A lower percentage of seniors than professors reported that faculty give written comments on drafts.
  While seniors had similar percentages to faculty in receiving oral comments on papers, a lower percentage of seniors (43 percent) than faculty (73 percent) reported that professors in their majors give written comments on drafts. What could cause this discrepancy? First, we did not match the professors with the students as we might have done if we had interviewed a specific class and its professor. Second, maybe students are not aware that they can receive comments from their professors if they ask or submit an early draft. At least one senior reported that some faculty give comments only if asked. Professors could make this option clearer to students.
  
• Few faculty have students read and comment on each other's papers in class.
  To the question of whether faculty have students read and comment on each other's papers in class, only 35 percent said they do. Only 20 percent of the seniors said that faculty in their majors use this form of response. The largest category of reasons faculty gave for not having classmates comment on each other's papers was "just don't" or "never have." Time constraints and the professors' doubts about the students' abilities to be competent reviewers were other reasons.
  
  Comments from faculty also related to ethics: "not to consult on each other's texts" and "not influence each other." Several natural science professors and a psychology professor said that lab partners may confer on data but should not confer on the writing of a lab report. A biology professor said he "wished [the partners' lab reports] were more different," indicating his fear of too much collaboration between partners on the writing.
  
• A majority of the faculty surveyed allow others to comment on students' papers out of class.
  The majority of the faculty (64 percent from 14 departments) said they allow others (in addition to writing center tutors) to comment on students' papers out of class.
  
• Seniors reported less permissible collaboration.
  Seniors showed a discrepancy with faculty. Only 27 percent said their professors allowed others to comment on papers. Again, we may not have a match between students and professors. Or perhaps students, unaware of their professor's expectations regarding outside readers, have a stricter interpretation of the Honor Code than their professors.
  
  Four faculty members said that they have not explicitly addressed the subject of outside readers: "not actually forbidden, just not mentioned as an option" and "I don't tell them they can't." Some faculty members apparently do not mention outside response in any way. Thus, students appear to be taking the safe side of the issue.
  
  One reason faculty gave for allowing others to read and comment on students' papers out of class was to enable students to learn from each other: "stimulating thought and peer criticism is good for both students" and "bounce ideas off others." A second group of faculty responses said that having others comment on papers is part of the writing process. They mentioned using feedback from colleagues in their own writing processes: "I've benefited by having others critique my work." Sociology, history, and political science professors referred to editing concerns: "a good way to proofread."
  
  The sixteen professors from eight departments who said they did not allow outside readers (besides writing center tutors) gave some reasons that reflect the Honor Code: two mentioned the Honor Code directly. Several more had comments showing ethical concerns: "dangerous area-can easily lead to borrowing ideas" and "be sure it's their writing." Clearly Presbyterian College faculty members differ in their attitudes toward student interaction in the process of writing papers. Whereas those quoted in the previous paragraph see danger in students reading and commenting on each other's papers, the majority of our faculty sample allow it.
  
• Professors restrict who may respond and what type of response students may receive.
  Some faculty members who allow outside readers have no restrictions on who may comment: "as many as possible-seek ones who may be critical." However, 57 percent restrict who those readers may be. Some specify who may not help: "not an English professor," "not a biology professor," "not someone else in class," and "not someone writing on the same topic." Some specify those who may help: "only research librarians" and "only your class partner." Seniors mentioned several of the same restrictions that faculty mentioned.

Forty-five percent of the faculty who allow outside readers have restrictions on the type of help students may receive. Some comments reflect ethical concerns, such as "can only discuss the topic," "can get comments on what is wrong but cannot have a friend tell them how to fix it," and "no rewriting but help [the writer] learn how to do this process." Seniors' comments on restrictions show their awareness of the Honor Code as well: "I am not aware of any restrictions as long as your ideas are in the paper." A history major said other readers "can comment on style and grammar but not content."

Faculty members from history, political science, and sociology differ from the English Department by permitting proofreading. A history professor encourages outside proofreading and "anything within the law," seeing "no difference between dorm and writing center."

• A lower percentage of seniors than faculty reported that professors require acknowledgement of out-class-help on papers.
  Forty-one percent of the faculty who allow out-of-class help require acknowledgement, but only 13 percent of seniors surveyed reported that their professors asked for acknowledgement. Two biology professors expect a footnote explaining the amount of help. Two psychology faculty members said acknowledgement is necessary only if the help resulted in "substantial alterations" or "integral change."
  
  In the humanities and natural sciences, 50 percent or more of the faculty sampled expected acknowledgement of out-of-class help on papers, but a much lower percentage of seniors reported that acknowledgement is required (0 percent in natural sciences and 17 percent in humanities). Only one senior mentioned a specific way professors required acknowledgement: "in our bibliographies." Again, perhaps we have not matched professors and students, or students are unaware of their professors' expectations regarding acknowledgement of outside help on papers.
  
• Faculty need to communicate their expectations.
  Because PC faculty differ in their attitudes toward out-of-class help on papers, students cannot be expected to know a particular professor's policy. Professors should communicate in writing on syllabi and assignment sheets whether they will comment on drafts if asked, whether they encourage students to have others read and comment on papers, whether they restrict who may comment or what type of response students may receive, and whether students should acknowledge help they receive in the process of writing their papers.

Clark, Irene Lurkis. "Collaboration and Ethics in Writing Center Pedagogy." Writing Center Journal 12.2 (1992): 125-44.

Clark, Irene L., and Dave Healy. "Are Writing Centers Ethical?" WPA: Writing Program Administration 20.1/2 (Fall/Winter 1996): 32-38.

Cohen, Randy. "Is Googling O.K.?" The Ethicist. The New York Times Magazine. 15 Dec. 2002: 50-52.

Harris, Muriel. "Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer Response Groups." College Composition and Communication 43.3 (1992): 369-383.

Munch, Joseph A. "I did not receive aid from that consultant: Operating a Writing Center under an Honor Code. Writing Lab Newsletter (June 2002): 14-16.

Writing Centered 03