"We hold these truths to be self-evident (Euclid), that all men are created equal (Mazzei), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Locke/Hutcheson).
A discussion about plagiarism becomes a bloody conflict; like most battles, the contingent outcome relies on strategic positioning. Opponents have taken the moral high ground (plagiarism is wrong!) and a brigade of debaters are flanking with rhetorical maneuvers. I am tempted to raise the white flag, to submit a conscientious retraction and admit the sin of plagiarism. Hold ground.
"Plagiarism" is a baggy term, parachuting over academic fields, landing in both charted and unmarked terrains. To define this vague word, we are first led on a linguistic goose chase. Plagiarism is cheating. Define "cheating." Cheating is ambiguous. Define "ambiguous." Define "define."
The latest Honor Committee edict on plagiarism outlines some material. With extreme caution, I will try to paraphrase from the document.
An early line claims: "Every case of alleged plagiarism will necessarily entail unique facts and circumstances" (1). As a frequent academic allegation, plagiarism is a nuanced charge, ranging in various degrees of seriousness from outright copying to missing a citation or borrowing a phrase. The subtleties of the incident should be paralleled by a fitting punishment, based on the precise nature of each case. Here, the complex matter of plagiarism is frighteningly compromised by the bivariate thinking of single sanction: "Whether or not the line has been crossed will be decided on a case-by-case basis" (3). There is an arbitrary line, moving for each scenario and somehow pinpointed by our peers, that ultimately decides our fate: whether we are sent to the guillotine of expulsion. I would say, "It's not so black and white," but this is a borrowed phrase.
Besides promoting general prudence, the honor document only provides a Ouija board method for our assistance: "Check whether you can run your finger along your sentence and find the same ideas in the same order in your source" (4).
Typically, further plagiarism discussion disintegrates into a caricature of today's students; cheaters who fulfill a copy-paste ethos, using the internet to slink by a rigorous assignment. In a banal arms race, educators have turned to scanning technology to catch students mouse-handed. In "Generation Plagiarism," a springtime screed from the Indiana University student newspaper (then cited in the New York Times), the columnist states: "Turnitin.com inspires exactly the kind of fear that forces students to interact with their sources appropriately" (Wilensky). Across universities, the sentries are armed.
A more adequate consideration inspects our historical situation. History is a terrific gift (Aaron Eisen, "Our End to History"), but also a tremendous burden. Each successive generation is given a larger serving of knowledge. We are left to sustain a bloated history while squeezing in novel ideas.
Thus our generation has struggled to craft an original identity. In a world of pastiche culture, of music sampling, retro fashions, and movements that begin with "neo," is originality still possible? "If there is no originality and no literary property, there is no basis for the notion of plagiarism" says R.M. Howard (qtd. in Fish).
An opposing force is society's skepticism of unevidenced speculation. Speeches ditch rhetoric to recite facts; newspapers contain no writing, but only statistical surveys and psychological studies. Our greatest fear is an undocumented claim.
On every paper, the student navigates this narrow isthmus, sailing between copying and conjecture. He must think on his own, within a given structure. He must draw unique conclusions - but always cite evidence for support. This difficult situation reflects the paradox of education: The same schooling that opens our mind is also a primary socializing tool.
Along the spectrum of 'plagiarism,' how is lazy cheating distinguished from borrowed influence? "The important question," the honor mandate reminds us, "is whether you have represented someone else's ideas or work as your own original ideas or work" (3). This is the important question? Taking someone else's ideas and incorporating them into your own thought, into your own life - isn't that learning?
The emphasis of plagiarism, alas, is on the citation. The trivial line separating 'cheating' and 'academic honesty' is whether you acknowledge your sources to make sure the correct people get recognition. We do not understand why Faulkner said of his books: "I wish I had had enough sense to see ahead thirty years ago, and like some of the Elizabethans, not signed them." We choose to forget the Jefferson quote: "The field of knowledge is the common property of mankind" (qtd. in Hyde 15).
And so schools instruct us. The studying, the teaching, the research - all of it is done for credit.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 18 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | YesterdayMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
