Blog Archive » 2007 » March

I received a reply to my last blog on "Wiki-Ethics" from Jason Johnson, the author of the "Cut and Paste is a Skill, Too" Washington Post article to which I objected strongly. I still disagree with him, but his explanation is important to illuminate this discussion:

Here's Mr. Johnson's message (quoted with his permission):

"I do not advocate violating school policies, including plagiarism. The plagiarism I perform at work is routine. I take weekly reports from other employees and compile them into monthly reports. These reports bear only my name and I do not reference or cite the works of others. I also compose content for public web sites by pulling from other (company owned) published sources; plagiarism pure and simple. The world of business is primarily ruled by copyright which is far more nuanced than plagiarism. I am sure (with your law background) that you know this, but many education professionals have sworn to me there are laws against plagiarism, when really they are just the policy of the institution with no more heft than the dress code. I have seen colleagues run afoul of copyright in business because they applied the rules of citation from academia, and vice versa.

"Looking at it from the outside now, the concept of plagiarism seems to exist as a means to help assure the content is original so that teachers can properly assess a student's absorption of the content. I think there are more efficient ways to test content absorption and teach writing skills and they do not have to be packaged together. Teachers are spending an inordinate amount of time (and schools' money) on combating plagiarism. Do we really want to continue the escalation, or should educators be seeking other paths?

"I believe students should write early and often, but a significant portion of that will need to be in a monitored environment if you want to ensure original writing skills are developed. I believe there is a marketable skill in taking the works of others and creating a well developed whole. I do it on a weekly basis and I wish that skill had been developed in an academic environment rather then on-the-job. And finally, I believe that these are two different skill sets that schools need different methodologies to assess and develop.

"We may agree to disagree, but I hope this clarifies the intent of the article."

I replied to his message:

"…while we may agree to disagree, I appreciate your explanation. We do take plagiarism very seriously here at Trinity, and we cannot relent in our effort to ensure that every student understands that the work she presents must have the highest integrity. We also believe deeply in the power of writing, and the best writing cannot be done in class, it takes time, quiet and deep thought to produce a good piece of writing. If students don't learn good academic habits of writing, proper citation and how to express their own thoughts correctly (not cutting and pasting) in high school, we are left with tremendous remedial work to accomplish in college.

"I felt that your article conveyed a message of disdain for the importance of writing, and the even more serious importance of teaching about integrity in producing a work product that is truly the student's own. I responded strongly because your article could lead many students to believe that plagiarism rules are debatable, that it might be ok to slack off on writing assignments. Your statement below, that the "concept of plagiarism seems to exist as a means to help assure the content is original so that teachers can properly assess a student's absorption of the content" misses the mark. Plagiarism is cheating. Our focus on rooting out plagiarism is driven by an overwhelming concern for integrity and academic honesty. Presenting someone else's work as your own is dishonest —- unless it's in the kind of situation you describe as pertaining to your workplace, where the compilation is approved and known. That's not plagiarism."

Other comments? Please send your comments to me by clicking on the envelope below, or directly to president@trinitydc.edu

Just because something appears on a computer screen doesn't mean it's true. Well, sure, who can disagree with that? But from my earliest introduction to the Internet — years ago when the real inventor of Trinity's first email system, Jim Heynderixx (his actual job was as the first director of the Writing Center, but Jim's gifts went well beyond paragraphs) tried to explain bulletin boards and the alt.newsgroup concept to me — I pressed the question: how do we teach students how to differentiate between truth and fiction when the medium itself can seem to take on the authority of an oracle?

We live on the frontier of the Information Age, a vast terrain called cyberspace where the rules of engagement are loose and vague, morphing to suit the gatherings of posses and pioneers camping out on MySpace or CraigsList or YouTube or BoingBoing or among the denizens of Wikipedia and the blogosphere, all tracing maps through Google or Yahoo to sort through the endless stream of information and chatter, sound and light and boundless imagery — some good and true, some simply wasteful and vapid, some invented and fictitious, some outright lies. Centuries from now people will probably laugh at our quaint customs in what is really still the first full decade of pervasive online life.

How do we teach students to distinguish between truth and fiction? Of course, this is the central question of all education through the ages. When the medium was simply speech (think: Socrates asking rhetorical questions under that tree), students still had to learn to sort out truth and fiction — hence the "Socratic Method" with its rigorous internal logic exercises. Then the printed word emerged to supplement the lecture, and from the middle ages academics invented elaborate systems and rules to ensure rigor in the search for Truth. For most collegiate faculty today, as in the past, popular print media (newspapers, magazines) are rarely acceptable as primary sources, and almost never an encyclopedia. Original scholarly texts, presented in appropriate citation format, are the first, and sometimes only, acceptable sources for coursework.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-Internet Luddite — heck, I have a blog!

But two related opinion columns in today's Outlook section of the Washington Post really caught my attention. One of the pieces, entitled "Cut and Paste is a Skill, Too," presented a stunningly irresponsible case for tolerating plagiarism and eliminating the writing of term papers as a means of assessing student performance. I spent too much time wondering what got into the Post editors who allowed this ridiculous piece to get into the paper. The writer (did Jason Johnson actually write the column, or did he just cut and paste it from some sophomore's dream of a world without plagiarism consequences, a world without the need to demonstrate any ability to write something longer than an instant message) manifested a remarkable disrespect for the ability to conceptualize and write a lucid text presenting the student's own analysis of facts and opinions. The writer argues that we academics should simply give in to the prevalence of plagiarism and find methods other than term papers to assess student knowledge, reasoning and writing abilities (well, he pretty much dismissed writing abilities as relevant).

I wonder who will be able to hire his successor if we ditch writing as a primary academic skill? What will happen to the valid authority of any piece of writing if we ignore the fundamental ethics of citation, if we give plagiarism a pass because it's become so hard to regulate?

Writing is essential, and plagiarism is unacceptable. We must not relent on those simple points. Trinity does not tolerate plagiarism; our Academic Honesty Policy is clear.

The second column, "Wikiality in My Classroom," is worth reading and debating. A teacher at St. Albans, Jacqueline Hicks Grazette, comments on the challenges posed by new information sources on the Internet, notably, Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia be an acceptable source for student papers? Should Googling be an acceptable primary research method? These are movable feasts for academic argumentation — research without the Internet is now unthinkable, but how do we teach students to differentiate between the slick, easy answers (many of which are also quite wrong) and the hard, deep research into original sources that also requires considerable critical analysis? I applaud this teacher's example of a good use of a fine Internet resource — she expects her students to read Supreme Court opinions as part of her American History classes, but she also has them listen to oral arguments available on the Supreme Court's OYEZ Project website.

The Wiki-Age does not require new rules, but rather, a reaffirmation of the essential rules of academic ethics. Academic research is a journey of exploration, and our job as teachers requires us to help students learn to see the Truth and recognize the fraud. The Internet is a great tool, now indispensable, but the fact that some information comes across a computer screen is no different than if that information came in a book, newspaper, television or radio. Students must learn the art of critical analysis, one of the primary skills taught in higher education. That skill can only be demonstrated in written and oral communication — even science and mathematics require facility with words to analyze the problems, and even art and music rely on words for interpretation. Knowing how to use words well, how to communicate honestly and persuasively, how to produce the artifacts of human intelligence in text and symbol and image and sound — this is the true manifestation of higher learning.

What do you think about Wikipedia and other Internet research tools? What about Jason Johnson's proposal that the only way to stop plagiarism is to stop assigning term papers? Send me your comments by clicking on the envelope below or sent an email to president@trinitydc.edu

See wikipedia,

I've been thinking all day about Elizabeth Edwards. She's the wife of former Senator John Edwards, a candidate for president of the United States. At the end of his last election run — as John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in 2004 — Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer. She underwent aggressive treatment, and thought she beat it.

But, earlier this week, the bad news came again: the cancer had returned, this time in bone. "Not curable, but treatable" seems to be the prognosis.

But Elizabeth Edwards' indomitable spirit will be the best medicine. She and her husband declared that they will continue the campaign. Some pundits wrongly reported that John would drop out — but they obviously did not know the determination of this couple who have faced tragedy before in the death of their son and the first bad diagnosis two years ago.

In this month when we observe Women's History, Elizabeth Edwards writes a new chapter. Regardless of how anyone might feel about John's political positions, Elizabeth's story is compelling. Even before her first breast cancer diagnosis, she was a political spouse who broke the mold — a lawyer unafraid to speak her mind, a pragmatic partner who does not seem overly preoccupied with fashion or bottled beauty. She is focused on real life, and her real life is a story that millions of women can relate to.

Persisting in the face of bad news, remaining optimistic despite great personal tragedy — Elizabeth Edwards transcends mundane political concerns to teach powerful lessons about hope and courage. Her "amazing grace" is an inspiration for all women coping with illness and loss.

See "Buddy Check 9" and Race for the Cure, "john edwards", breast cancer

95 years ago this month in Savannah, Juliette Gordon Low gathered 18 girls to form the very first troop of Girl Scouts. Today, nearly 4 million girls are the beneficiaries of her great initiative. Girl Scouts is the largest organization serving girls in the world, touching the lives of more than 50 million girls and women through the first century of this movement.

Last night in Social Hall, we gathered with a group of 19 Girl Scouts who are still in high school, their mothers and troop leaders, Trinity students who are also Girl Scouts, and professional women who are part of the large support network for Girl Scouts in this region. Jan Verhage, executive director of the Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital (with 50,000+ girls and 22,000 adult members, the largest Council in the nation) spoke about the vital importance of Girl Scouting in today's world. The mission of the Girl Scouts is to build "…girls of courage, confidence and character, who make the world a better place." I've known Jan and her staff for many years, and I know that they live this mission with great enthusiasm, deep commitment and passion every day.

The girls spoke about why being a Girl Scout is important for them — learning many important new skills, developing confidence, having valuable experiences, forming lifelong friendships, and perhaps most important, having a broad network among sister scouts and troop leaders to inspire and support them in their growing years. The spoke about the unique opportunities they have received for networking with women professionals through the Women's Advisory Board (on which I serve) and Camp CEO (a summer camp experience where some of us on the Women's Advisory Board share the delights of camping with Girl Scouts).

In these complicated days, with too much bad news out there about the conditions of education or the behaviors of some young women, the Girl Scouts stand out as a remarkable example of the simple fact that girls will respond beautifully when adults care enough to invest time and energy in their development. Girl Scouts make it very cool to wear the uniforms, show off the badges, sell cookies, camp out — and to build their resumes of experience and connections with many innovative programs, travel and adventure, high-level awards and college scholarships. (Trinity is very pleased to offer Girl Scout Scholarships — click on the link to learn more!)

Jan Verhage, her staff and volunteer corps, have devoted their lives to ensuring that thousands of girls in this region will always have extraordinary opportunities to grow strong. Equally remarkable, Jan and her team have also made it possible for thousands of grown women (and a few good men!) to reconnect with their inner Girl Scout, too — even going so far as to entice scores of polished professional women to forsake the four stars of the Four Seasons for a night or two with the girls under the stars at Camp Coles Trip.

On June 9, tens of thousands of Girl Scouts and friends will gather on the National Mall for a sing-along to celebrate the 95th Anniversary. Trinity will be there, because "Girl Power" is our life's work, too, and we know that the girls and women we educate and celebrate today will be the mothers and leaders of the future generations. We are proud to be associated with the Girl Scouts!

For more information on the Girl Scouts, visit the website of the Girl Scouts of the Nation's Capital and Girl Scouts USA.

On this unhappy 4th anniversary of "Shock and Awe," the beginning of the War in Iraq, I am reminded of the passionate speech that Pope Paul VI made at the United Nations in 1965 — "Jamais la guerre!" he proclaimed in French, "No more war! War, never again!"

His speech riveted the world — this was the first time a sitting Pope had ever visited the United Nations, ever set foot in the United States, and he brought an unyielding message of peace. His message carried forward the Church's teachings on peace so eloquently stated by his predecessor Pope John XXIII in the encyclical Pacem in Terris. Later, Pope John Paul II would become a tireless and forceful advocate for peace.

Alas, as with so many other dimensions of the social justice teachings, the world took little heed of the Pope's plea. 1965 in hindsight seems like a much more innocent time, a time before the true catastrophe that Vietnam became, a time before we had a conscious recognition of Bosnia and Chechnya and Rwanda and Somalia and Afghanistan. In 1965 we could hardly imagine September 11 and the violence that monstrous act of terrorism would unleash in response.

Now, four years after the start of the War in Iraq, a pre-emptive war based on now-disproven evidence of weapons of mass destruction — a war that the majority of the American people now clearly oppose, a war that has devoured 3200 American military personnel and left tens of thousands of others to live with serious physical and emotional wounds, a war that has destroyed more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and immeasurable dimensions of Iraqi culture — it's time to recall and act upon the simple, compelling message of that singular figure in white standing in the well of the U.N. General Assembly so long ago.

Jamais la guerre. No more war.