“The Anxieties of Authorship and Pedagogy” is a very interesting read because it highlights the elusive nature of plagiarism. Howard clearly avoids pinpointing specifics as universal examples of plagiarism. Plagiaristic ideals can vary in degree, are dependent on context (for example, the act of reapplying professors’ ideas on exams is exempt from being stamped with the plagiarism label), and range from one institution to another. With so many fuzzy corners and variables, only one thing is clear; the odds are stacked up against the writer. As students, we suffer because of not only the fear that is instilled in the “Plagiarism Statement” but also the uncertainty of wrongdoing that shadows over every word we type.
The “Plagiarism Statement” that we examined in class is very gatekeeper-esque. It automatically assigns blame, frankly stating that the student “should know” what qualifies as plagiarism. Why should all of the responsibility be in the student’s hands if the teacher is additionally supposed to work as a facilitator? Leniency is also lacking from the statement, for phrases such as “will not be tolerated” and “will automatically fail” are used. How can such ultimate, criminal sentences be justly applied if the very essence of plagiarism is open-ended and, to a certain extent, undefined?
The elusive nature of plagiarism is highlighted right within the “Academic Misconduct Rules and Procedures” brochure. In the section entitled “Some Special Points About…,” collaboration is treated on a case by case basis, while plagiarism is rigid and closed to individual interpretation. The writers of this manual seem to be ignorant of what Howard discussed throughout her essay. Moreover, this format implies that collaboration is different from plagiarism. However, some would deem both as synonymous acts. In fact, in Howard’s piece, Richard A. Fass finds buying a paper online to be just as bad as seeking a “writing tutor’s assistance in the ‘style and structure of a paper.’” Does this mean I am automatically plagiarizing if I seek help from the
2 comments:
I do agree that the plagiarism statment should be revamped and updated to agree with some of Howard's ideas, however, do you think students would respond as well if fear and "gatekeeping" were not emphasized? Would the statement still be a deterrant to plagiarism? I think students might take it less seriously and there might be a rise in plagiarism.
I agree with Amy. Fear needs to be included in some way because that is why most people don't plagiarize. The fear that they will get caught, fail, or expelled because of the emphasized "gatekeeping" ensures a lack of knowledge and uncertainty when writing papers and allowing for possibly more citing than necessary but less plagiarism due to the uncertainty.
Post a Comment