One obvious counter-argument is that this goes against the idea so fundamental to the American ethos that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and it is better to let two guilty people go free than to punish one innocent individual. While this may be true of serious capital crimes, a college Honor Board has a responsibility not to simply uphold the rights of the individual but also to the need to create a livable and upright academic community. A community where cheating is tolerated is not academically healthy, and if people feel that others can get away with cheating, they will be less morally rigorous in terms of their own academic honesty.
Furthermore, cheating by computer has gotten easier and easier, and until better controls can be instated, and hacker-proof technology has essentially caught up with the cleverness of dishonest students, some...
Thus, both students must retake the exam, both the honest student and the guilty student, or both guilty students. Even if this means that the guilty student gets a grade and the honest student is penalized the solution the best of all alternatives, given that there is both punishment for the guilty, but no outright expulsion or failure for the innocent student.
So says the strict consequentialist. Of course, if I was the honest student I would feel differently. My rights are trampled upon simply because I am a victim, I would exclaim! I have been made a victim twice over by the Honor Board! The weakness of consequentialism is its utilitarianism, which ignores the right of the individual, even though it may make for a better and more ethical community in this instance.
