> Explain that you expect integrity, and then watch the students raise their hands and ask how they will be tested on this. You say it's expected. Back and forth a few times, until eventually some of them start crying, and then their heads explode, because they can't figure out how to game that.

This assumes that the students are untrustworthy and the faculty/institution are ultimately trusted. In a world in which that is not true (such as the world that produces the article we're commenting on), and students sometimes encounter problems due to unclear expectations or vague criteria that are not the student's fault, it is not unreasonable for people to ask questions whose goal is to find out the actual non-vague criteria to avoid unpleasant surprises.

By way of one of many examples: many excellent classes encourage students to talk about assignments with each other, as long as the work they turn in is their own. Now consider what happens if a student accustomed to such a policy encounters a class taught with a different policy, where that policy has not been made clear in advance.

Honor codes and integrity are excellent things to enforce. Transparency and crystal-clear criteria are also excellent things to enforce. Not to allow gaming the system, but to ensure the system doesn't game anyone.