Pondering Stoffa’s recent opinion article, I couldn’t help but wonder what possible good he could be promoting here. Stoffa witnessed a clandestine gathering of not-so-sneaky students gabbling on about how they would game the system and get the grade without doing the work. Stoffa’s response? Apparently, he was less disgusted by their plan to advance academically by deception and subterfuge than by the fact that they were too dumb to keep their mouths shut on the bus.

In other words, the moral danger here is that the students might get caught-not that they were cheating. Stoffa’s message seems to be “lie, cheat, do drugs, do your thing, but whatever your bad habit, man, hide it better.” The crime is being caught, not actually doing the cheating.

Stoffa notes that “Near-on everyone partakes in some illicit activities on a regular basis,” and seems to think that justifies the matter. But what are these ubiquitous “illicit” activities? Illegally downloading music and movies, perhaps? Does that mean we should condone such activities? Is it really wise to equivocate, as if all our negative choices are equal morally, so let’s not judge? “Hey, you’re a sinner, too” does not excuse my sin, or anyone else’s.

Stoffa doesn’t hesitate to add that he, indeed, has an ethical compass, too, although the implication is that he is ethical because he did not tattle. Perhaps I have misunderstood him; surely he does not approve of cheating, which ultimately hurts the cheater, and all those deceived thereby. But perhaps we should not be warning the cheaters, lest they be caught in their treachery. Why should they be protected from their folly? We would be served better if the perpetrators were encouraged to speak more rashly yet, that more might be caught, and the educational system made more safe and fair for the industrious individuals who actually work for their grades.