Editor’s note: This is one in a series of commentaries by Michael Josephson, founder and president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics and the Character Counts! coalition. He will speak today in Lawrence.

The recent Paul Hamm controversy over his Olympic gold medal reminds me of a conversation I had back in my professor days. A student came to my office to report that I made an error in grading his multiple choice exam. I erroneously gave him credit for an incorrect answer. I thanked him for his honesty and moved to change the grade in my records.

Chat with ethicist Michael Josephson at 3 p.m., today

His beaming face turned to shock. “You’re lowering my grade?” he sputtered. “I never would have come in if …” He didn’t finish the sentence, but it was obvious that his display of integrity was counterfeit. He thought he’d have it all — praise and the higher grade.

Many faculty colleagues thought I should have allowed him to keep the higher grade because he did nothing wrong. Besides, they thought, my approach would end up discouraging rather than promoting honesty. But I couldn’t then, and can’t now, see how I could justify undermining the integrity of all my grades by failing to correct a known error. If I gave the student a higher grade than he deserved to compensate for my mistake, the grade would be a dishonest reflection of his knowledge and it would have been unfair to other students.

I know correcting an error in one’s favor is unusual, but, like returning too much change, it’s clearly the right thing to do. No one wants to voluntarily give up valued benefits. The problem is that the notion of integrity isn’t about innocent intentions or being nice. And, it’s not a punishment to take away something that was given by mistake. The duty to accept and keep only what we’ve earned is based on simple notions of right and wrong, not risks and rewards.