For students taking a two-hour biology or chemistry midterm, it would seem that their choice of writing utensil would be the least of their worries. For some, however, this decision could impact their chance of having their papers regraded for accuracy.

Like many science tests, the front page of each Biology 42 exam states: “Exams submitted for regrading must be entirely written in nonerasable pen.” Yet many students say they feel this policy impacts the quality of their work — and goes against the spirit of the honor code.

While not specifically addressed in the Honor Code, the decision to institute a pen-only policy is left to the discretion of each individual professor, and may vary within a single department. Biology core coordinator and lecturer David Muir and chemistry professor Wray Huestis are two faculty members who each choose to uphold it; while Huestis declined to comment for the article, Muir defended the policy, which has been instated in his department since before his arrival five years ago.

“When examining students we may not subject them to conditions where they are tempted to violate the Honor Code,” he said. “We institute reasonable measures to limit [such temptation].”

Laurette Beeson, Judicial Advisor of the Office of Judicial Affairs, agreed with Muir, and said, “I don’t believe a pen-only policy does compromise the Honor Code.”

Beeson cited Section C of the Code, which states, “While the faculty alone has the right and obligation to set academic requirements, the students and faculty will work together to establish optimal conditions for honorable academic work.”

Beeson noted that the Code also allows for faculty to photocopy some or all of the exams before returning them, a policy which Muir himself, employs.

“The Honor Code does not require that faculty accept student regulation of how exams are administered,” he said. “There is a misunderstanding among students that the Honor Code is kind of a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

For senior Jay Pandit, the policy’s assurance of faculty trust in students outweighs its drawbacks.

“Even though it causes a lot of frustration during the exams, I think it is a good policy because it gets rid of the unnecessary doubts that could be cast on students regarding cheating,” he said.

However, many students feel the policy goes directly against the very principle of the Honor Code.

According to Section B of the Code, “The faculty on its part manifests its confidence in the honor of its students by refraining from proctoring examinations and from taking unusual and unreasonable precautions to prevent forms of dishonesty.”

Sophomore Lauren Harper said she believes the pen-only policy violates this section’s confidence in the student.

“This policy assumes that we would cheat when we have to sign the Honor Code on every exam,” she said. “That devalues the strength of the Code.”

Sophomore Sarah Rizk expressed similar feelings.

“The heart of the honor code is that Stanford trusts students not to cheat and this policy is really based on the supposition that people will cheat,” she said. “So, not only is it in stark contrast to the ideals of the University, but it also ultimately hurts students.”

This contrast was especially true for Rizk, who, as a dyslexic student, is allotted extra time for her exams through the Disabilities Resource Center.

“When I first found out about the policy I decided to take the first midterm in pencil because I figured the trade-off of doing better on the test versus not being able to have a regrade was worth it to me,” she said.

Rizk petitioned the policy after the test and may now receive pencil-regrades under the condition she requests a Xeroxed copy.

Muir said he makes this exception for “students who for one reason or another have to write in pencil.

“I am not utterly inflexible on everything,” he said. “People always have the right to tell you their story.”

He immediately added, “But I’m extremely reluctant to accept papers [written in pencil] that have been somewhere else and come back for a regrade.”

Despite her own special circumstances, Rizk said she still thinks the policy needs to be changed.

“I sort of think it’s unfair that this same opportunity isn’t extended to all Bio core students because it really puts them at a disadvantage,” she said.

Some students, such as sophomore Cathy Sun, said they see no injustice in the policy.

“Personally, I don’t have any difficulty writing in pen so the pen-only policy has never bothered me,” she said. “I think the policy is fair since they alert students of it before each test. Also, students are always allowed to use the back of previous pages for scratch paper before actually writing in the final answer, though this does require extra time.”

Time which could affect a student’s grade, according to Rizk.

“Not allowing people to write in pencil really decreases their chances of doing well on the test because it increases how sloppy you are and makes it so that you can’t easily go back and correct things,” she said.

Harper said she felt similarly.

“I write in pencil,” she said. “I think it’s absurd to assume that you’re not going to make any mistakes on a Bio core exam.”

It is for reasons such as Rizk’s and Harper’s that chemistry prof. Robert Waymouth chooses to not administer the pen-only regrade policy in any of his classes.

“It seems that requiring pen-only makes it difficult for students to self-correct,” he said, and added that the preventative measures the policy takes against cheating “do not outweigh the imposition it puts on students to write their exams.”

Waymouth furthermore said he doubted the strength of the pen-only policy to begin with.

“I teach some of the largest lecture classes and it wasn’t really clear that a pen-only policy made any difference in potential violations of the Honor Code,” he said.

Echoed Rizk, “The risk of cheating is something that universities must deal with everyday and taking one more preventive measure may not be the answer when it puts honest students at a disadvantage.”