This study examines student responses to the question, "What circumstances, if any, could make cheating justified?" It then assesses how well those responses can be classified by existing theories and categories that emerge from a qualitative analysis of the data. Results show considerable support for techniques of neutralization, partial support for the accounts perspective, and further insights from emergent categories. Reasons offered by students as justifications for cheating serve both rational decision making and post-hoc rationalizations. Policies designed to promote academic integrity must address both of those. The rational decision making view suggests an implicit contract between instructor and student that offers opportunities for reducing cheating by clarifying expectations for students and by designing courses that live up to the instructor's side of that contract. The rationalizing view reinforces the need for consistent enforcement of clear standards.