« Invasion of the Voice Snatchers | Main | The economics of prosecuting plagiarism »
May 22, 2005
"Inelegant footnoting"
When you copy from another author and don't let your readers know it, it's called inelegant footnoting, not plagiarism. Got that?
But still. There's a worthwhile issue here, and that's the ways in which plagiarism charges can serve political rather than intellectual or ethical ends. In fact, plagiarism charges can themselves be unethical: when they are selectively used against people who are out of favor for other reasons. This student at Wells College believes that she is being persecuted for her political beliefs. I've wondered about the real motives for charging Ward Churchill with plagiarism. True, according to the rather garbled Post-Standard story, 90% of the Wells College student's work came unattributed from other sources. Well, yeah, you say (or at least I sure did)—that's plagiarism! If it's true, then yeah, it is. But the question is, are these charges being more energetically pursued against this student for other reasons? Same question with Churchill: given how many incidents of professorial plagiarism are reported, and how few seem to be actually sanctioned, what does it mean that the politically egregious Churchill is being investigated for plagiarism? In a similar vein, Ernest Miller laments what he characterizes as the decision of St. Lawrence University to use its copyright as a means of exercising censorship.
Chris Anderson seems fairly well-organized about using his blog to write his book. Me, much less so. Too many episodes with cats, music, and what not intervene. But yes, I'm most certainly using the blog in a highly erratic way to work out passages of arguments that will indeed be in the book currently titled Plagiarism and Privilege in the Academy. (Ye-haw, I have a leave next spring for the purpose of finishing that book!) And yes, I'm choosing this public form of prewriting in hopes of getting others' reactions to and evaluations of my claims and evidence.
And yeah, yeah, I know all y'all are snorting when I make this longish post after bidding farewell to my Beloved Blog. But we all knew that I'm incapable of borg/blog resistance. It's futile, man. Besides, I put three handbook chapters to bed today, and that's what I call a good day's work.
Posted by senioritis at May 22, 2005 09:55 PM
Comments
This is an interesting argument. What I find most compelling is the fact that charges of plagiarism also affect the instructor. This semester I had to report/accuse/charge a student with plagiarism and it was very hard for me. On the one the hand I felt it was my responsibility, and yet is this mistake/lack of good judgment so severe that the student’s academic career should be destroyed? I opted for not placing a permanent mark on his transcript. I’m certain that some folks might feel that I should have thrown the proverbial book at the student in question, but ethically I felt that failing the unit and getting a terrible final grade was certainly punishment enough. The quandary comes when faced with trying to be fair to all involved; the students that did not break any rules and worked their behinds off, and the students that cheat. All of this rambling is meant to bring attention to how hard the final decision is to make-period. I think it’s lose-lose situation for both students and instructors.
Posted by: Denise at May 23, 2005 12:13 AM
Yes. One of the things that our culture is reluctant to acknowledge is that plagiarism is entirely relational, and its punishment affects the instructor, as well. Regardless of whether they do or don't punish plagiarism, teachers are injured by the event. You're entirely right to talk about the ethics of the teacher when it comes to determining what is euphemistically called the "sanctions."
Posted by: senioritis at May 23, 2005 04:49 AM