I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. The article didn't say that half the students were cheating. It said that half were suspected of cheating.

Of course, considering that it's an Introduction to Congress class, you could argue that the cheaters grasped the essence of Congress better than the non-cheaters.

This isn't selective enforcement, just evaluating each case individually.

Those enforcing a law are typically free to find different answers (punishments) to similar questions (crimes) as long as they can distinguish the case.

The big dangerous problem, rule-of-law-wise, is when a court deviates in its method of judging, not in its judgements.

Half were suspected of cheating.

If to you, that sentence is synonymous with "half were cheating". I'd say it's your interpretation of the law that is suspect.

You don't know if the law was overlooked in those cases, or if they were found to be not guilty or significantly less guilty, or if they were simply given less harsh sentences. Discretion given to specify different sentences for the same crime is sensible.

A cynic might predict Harvard's building plan that was suspended for the financial crisis will soon be back on track.

>Selective enforcement of the "law" is no law at all.

Actually it's very much a law. And it's how the law works in the real world. It might not be "justice", but it's law alright.

From the kid who the local cop knows his family and lets him walk on something that would land someone else in juvenile prison to the rich guy literally getting away with murder. And there are stuff that cops selectively enforce everyday, e.g ignoring someone selling dope small-time, because he snitches bigger fishes for them.

A law can still be effective, if the selective enforcement prevents the majority of the people of breaking it.