To the Editor:
Steven Andrews and The Mirror are to be congratulated for doing a superb job in publicizing the growing problem of plagiarism on college campuses (Students Accused of Plagiarism, Feb. 19). Had my own intention been “to make a point” to the campus community, as the article suggests, I could not have done a better job than by publishing the story in The Mirror, complete with the sensational allegation that the students were “…charged with plagiarism by a computer program and failing the course, then having the teacher refuse to read the paper in question over in person to make sure the computer made no mistake.” Your article has brought to the attention of the entire campus community a serious problem, even if it took a little hyperbole to do the job.
But alas I cannot take credit for such an intention. The only message that can be sent by a professor in a case of academic dishonesty is to the student that the practice itself is forbidden and cannot be the basis for academic credit.
False allegations about my conduct have been made. The students involved have chosen not to take direct credit for these allegations, so I will speak only in terms of my policy regarding plagiarism, not to the specifics of these cases. If the charge of plagiarism is mistaken, then why not stand up, take credit for the work in question, and submit it to the review of our peers? Inquiring minds seek evidence for claims, not just assertions, and the article raises many questions which the writing in question could have helped answer.
I do not grade papers by computer and have never done so. I personally read all papers submitted to me and grade them on the basis of the depth of research, the quality of the argument and the quality of the presentation. I do, however, employ a computer program-Eve, one recommended by our own library’s Web site on plagiarism. The report that Eve produces is only the beginning. In every case in which the report finds matches, the professor must examine each match, comparing the students’ paper to the web document itself to ensure that the match is not based on a random phrase, or that the match is not a quoted text from the student’s paper. Although Eve will produce a one-to-one report of each Web document and the student’s paper, this report is not printable, and the user must document the matched text by hand with a print out of the student’s paper and the Web document.
Plagiarism is a serious charge because academic credit is based on the actual performance of the student: their own thinking, imagination, and creativity. In many disciplines this performance is reflected in their writing and we demand that that writing be the student’s own. Plagiarism cheapens the value of the university degree for all. It undermines faith and trust in the educational achievements of the student and the university itself. There is certainly more that the university can do to educate students about plagiarism and students clearly need to be counseled about the appropriate use of the Internet, but whether one copies from a book or from a Web page, if one represents another’s writing as one own, one is guilty of plagiarism whether the misrepresentation is accidental or intentional.
This is the position of the Modern Language Association’s Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. The MLA is also linked to the Library’s Web site on plagiarism, and the Handbook (which is in our library) states clearly on page 70: “Presenting an author’s exact wording without marking it as a quotation is plagiarism, even if you cite the source.” Most of my colleagues would agree with this definition and not with the WPA document quoted in your article, which seems to excuse sloppy and accidental failures to properly acknowledge one’s sources. The idea that the students followed this “plagiarism guideline which the library posts on its web site” is a contradiction in terms. To be guided by a policy of clumsy documentation of sources as the WPA document quoted in the Mirror states is disingenuous since to be aware of such failings is to be in the immediate position to remedy them. It also smacks of highly selective use of guidance when the university’s own policy on plagiarism is publicly available to all students, not to mention a tutorial on the library’s Web site, a variety of links to a variety of other sources on plagiarism, and the fact that I include a statement in my own syllabi (under the heading of “Academic Honesty”) that the use of quotations is essential when using the words of another author. Students need to take responsibility for knowing the rules under which their conduct will be judged.
Have I ignored “citations that students make if they quote them a certain way,” as an unnamed parent is quoted in your article? Without divulging the details of the papers in question I cannot refute this claim. I urge readers of this newspaper to view with skepticism claims made by unnamed parties without providing any evidence. Good research skills involve the discovery and analysis of as much evidence as possible and good thinking skills, not to mention respect for other persons, require that we not make judgments (or allegations) without having or providing sufficient evidence to back them up.
Sincerely, Curt Naser Associate Professor Department of Philosophy
Leave a Reply