How does higher education go about punishing and judging individuals and educate our nation’s children about plagiarism? Scott Jaschik is a leading voice on higher education issues, and is quoted regularly in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and Salon. Jaschik discusses the desperations of undergraduate professors attempting to educate our nation’s children on academic integrity in his article “Winning Hearts and Mind in War on Plagiarism.” The audience that Jaschik is targeting is the academic community; these views presented from students and teachers will help the academic community decide what can be done about plagiarism. The purpose of this article is for academia to have an honest conversation of the causes, and possible solutions, to help students understand what and how to address the problem of plagiarism in the University system. In the article “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism,” journalist Scott Jaschik emphasizes the problem of plagiarism through student examples, using comparison and contrast strategies used by college-level teachers, and utilizes quotes and jargon from current educators.
The first style that Scot uses is comparison. Roy Stamper of N.C States said that “he didn't know if all of the students were posting with accuracy about their situations, he still found plenty of truth in what they had to say”. Here, Scott gives the students the benefit of doubt. If one asks the question, do we blame the students entirely, the anchor to that would be Stamper’s argument that the students are ignorant. Still, Scott Jaschik emphasizes is that when faced with a moral dilemma, resolving the conflict requires a high degree of moral intelligence. In most cases, bad ethical judgment is rewarded in the short run even though is this often a short-term phenomenon. Granted, resolving ethical dilemmas is difficult because it requires making a choice between two deeply held values. In the teaching profession, the primary duty is inculcating high moral values for children and creating a society based on high ideals. It is thus important that when faced with ethical dilemmas, teachers choose that side that promotes integrity and fosters the primary objective of the profession. Understanding this concept requires the quality of honesty and judgment. Punishing students for crimes on plagiarism is thus perhaps one way that teachers can foster the problem of academic dishonesty without jeopardizing their moral obligation in the society. Scot Jaschik forces us to go beyond the normal realms regarding the issue of plagiarism.
Roy Stamper’s argument of student ignorance is rejected by some of the student’s response. For example, one student’s write “The less time you spend posting on here the more time u get to work on your paper”. This means that Scot Jaschik gives us the rhetoric argument that it would be easy to blame ignorance, if students did their work on time, they would get citations correct. The requirement of honesty does not go against any treaty signed by the students and teachers. In the same way, teachers must acknowledge “the moral nature of teaching” as demonstrated by Kate Hagopian from North Carolina State University. According to this expectation, the biggest moral obligation on the part of teachers is the change of another so that they understand and better behaviors at all times. Like, Kate Hagopian I agree that there is more to teaching that the dissemination of factual knowledge. Teachers must also play the key role of understanding that they learn from the students. In this process, there is the absence of the universal truth. However, ethical situations such as the ones involving parents, then the pursuit of truth and justice are compromised by buying into the expectations of the parents and the society.
Scot Jaschik’s article “Winning Hearts and Mind in War on Plagiarism” explored the concept of teaching and ethics and its connection with ethics to transform performance using consultative rhetoric. R. Gerald Nelms from Southern Illinois University argued that plagiarism is “an educational problem that requires an educational response." He presents an argument that a more comprehensive and engaging application of ethics creates `room for increased consultation that improves quality of education and the teachers primary responsibility for the society. In the same way, while ethics is hard to define, a more engaging and social responsible company will practice standards that are in accordance with the social responsibility. Ethics thus become correlated with performance and leadership, punishment as well as other mechanisms. The compromise for this case is the difference in the role of a teacher as a role model, law enforcer, and teacher of character. Here is the example “Should writing instructors be looking to peer teaching -- and specifically peer pressure -- as a new tool to promote integrity, Stamper asked”. By using this question, Scot forces the reader to pause for a second and answer the question for themselves.
Scot Jaschik argues that while research writing is such an important practice in the research community for purposes such as ensuring validity, avoidance of plagiarism, act of good faith for honor and respect for intellectual property rights, it is not the panacea in the realization of quality in the research field. The pursuit of quality and excellence is still, for the most part, a function of the researcher’s will and moral conscience. Still, one cannot emphasize enough how imperative it is for a researcher to embark on the noble process of avoiding plagiarism. Models used by Christy Zink, an assistant professor at George Washington University who used the play concept and Restorative Justice model is just one but many aspects that can be used to help students get to understand why plagiarism is an issue in the society. Catherine Savini of Columbia University also agrees that student’s ethical and social responsibility in their writings is an important step in the realization of plagiarism free writing.
In the essay, Scott Jaschik uses the rhetorical style of questioning our moral and ethical stand on the issue of student plagiarism. First, she covers all the stakeholders, highlighting their concerns regarding the problem of plagiarism. Second, she engages the audience by asking the questions on how best we could handle the issue. Third, she suggests methods of punishment. The method that she proposes gives us two choices that include: restorative justice or full force of the law. Scott Jaschik’s article is written through a pattern that probes the reader to help in making the decision. The arguments are laid out for the sole purpose of engaging the public on the dangers of plagiarism and how to handle it.
In conclusion, Scott Jaschik’s article “Winning Hearts and Mind in War on Plagiarism” explores the problem of plagiarism from different angles. He uses the perspectives of a teacher, a student, and of the society. I think that Jaschik makes the case that plagiarism is a societal problem it requires a holistic engagement to mitigate. However, for the war to be won, students must take the first step in understanding why plagiarism is detrimental to the pursuit of academic excellence. Efforts such as reduction in immediate punishment, teaching students how to cite sources, and balancing time in college would go a long way in mitigating the problem.
Work cited
Jaschik, Scott . "Buying Its "Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism 2008. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-03-30-texas-plagiarism_N.htm
