Blog Archive » Education

Say, "Sports scandal" and most of us probably think of men behaving badly.

Well, think again. In our new era of women's sports equality (sort of), we now have a tragic morality tale of how a great female athlete can also fall far from grace.

Marion Jones was revered one of the greatest female athletes of this generation, supposedly achieving a record five Olympic medals on her own merits. This past week, sadly, we learned she had a little help — she pled guilty to lying about her long-suspected use of steroids to enhance her performance. She has already returned her Olympic medals, and been banned for two years from competition, but far worse, she faces probable prison time for perjury.

Sometimes, students at Trinity wonder why we are so adamant about the Honor Code. Well, consider Marion Jones, now the latest sad example of the consequences of lying and cheating. Instead of retiring to years of fame after a glorious career, she is flat broke, headed to prison, and unlikely to work again in sports — all because she lied about whether she cheated, a double-whammy of broken honor.

Marion Jones presents a genuine American tragedy. She is not the first or only athlete to have fallen for the lure of performance-enhancing drugs. If any good can be found in her story, at least she has finally told the truth, and has apologized in unvarnished terms to her fans and family.

We're still waiting for some well known male athletes to come clean on these issues. Perhaps they can take a lesson from Marion Jones.

See Sally Jenkins' column in the Washington Post

See George Vecsey's column in the New York Times

Trinity Alumna (and Development Consultant) Aimee Dolaway Olivo weighs in with this observation:

"I read your Wiki blog with great interest… In the workplace, I also perform the same sort of cut and paste to which Johnson refers. After all, once text has been approved on an institutional level, such as in press releases, it only makes sense to use parts of it in correspondence with alumnae, etc. I agree with Johnson that this is a particular skill. Taking certain phrases or paragraphs written by someone else and melding them into one "voice" for a different audience is indeed a challenging task.

"However, I also write a great deal of original content in this job as I have in all my previous positions. I argue that Trinity's commitment to teaching writing through research papers and other academic means is critical to our students' ability to successfully function in the workplace. A substantive academic background in writing such as the one I received at Trinity not only serves as the basis for the ability to cut and paste and form one coherent document, but is important for those times when original work is required."

Let me reiterate: what Ms. Olivo and Mr. Johnson refer to — using text in the workplace over and over again — is NOT plagiarism because the writers prepared this text specifically for the purpose of institutional or corporate use, knew that it would be repeated in many places, and wrote as agents of the corporation, hence, they did not "own" their particular text and they knew in advance that others would use it for institutional purposes.

Here's an example of how such text COULD BECOME plagiarism: Presume the Widget Corporation had a particular piece of technical writing on its website. The writing explained a particular scientific process. Let's assume, for argument, that one staff member of the corporation wrote that text, perhaps for a brochure, and later other staff uploaded the text into other corporate materials, and eventually the webmaster of the Widget Corporation used the same text for a corporate website on the scientific process that produced a new product called Osprey. So far, nobody has committed any plagiarism.

Now suppose that a student is writing a paper for a course on advertising. The student selects the Widget Corporation for her study. She visits the Widget Corporation website and finds the material about their new product Osprey and the explanation of the scientific process behind the product. She selects, cuts and pastes all of the text directly into her term paper. She writes an opening paragraph saying, in essence, that this paper is about the marketing of the Osprey product, and she writes a closing paragraph that summarizes the marketing campaign. The rest of the paper is taken directly from the Widget website, but she does not use quotation marks and does not provide a citation at the start of the material. Moreover, the material copied from the website is presented as the body of the paper. However, she does provide a "Bibliography" in which the website address of the Widget Corporation is listed.

Has plagiarism occurred? Yes. The folks at the Widget Corporation surely did not expect a student to present their text as if it were her own. Her generic reference to the Widget website in her bibliography is insufficient to escape a charge of plagiarism, which is using text created by someone else and presenting it as if it were your own writing. In academic matters, this is considered to be cheating, stealing someone else's work product instead of creating your own.

Would a citation at the start of the excerpt have solved the problem? Most unlikely, because the excerpt was the majority of the paper. Quotations from other sources cannot simply be strung together to make a paper. Students must use their own intellectual skills to analyze information and present their analysis clearly. There is no easy way out — original writing and analysis is very hard, yes, but as Ms. Olivo points out above, honest writing is one of the most precious life skills that any student can acquire.

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,

One day he was famous for being a new, brash, acerbic conservative blogger on washingtonpost.com The next day he was a disgraced ex-Post-staffer. What happened to Ben Domenech? Plagiarism. Plain and simple, the most elementary form of academic theft. News reports indicate that he first plagiarized while writing for the student newspaper at the College of William and Mary, and then continued his dishonest ways in subsequent writings.

Some commentators are complaining that there's a tinge of politics in the whole "outing" of a conservative blogger's misdeeds after he outrageously characterized Coretta Scott King as a "communist." Mr. Domenech offers his own explanation in his blog "Red America Ends" on RedState.com

Politics aside, plagiarism is an academic crime, never justifiable, always a guaranteed act of self-destruction. At Trinity, our Academic Honesty Policy makes it clear that plagiarism and other forms of cheating will not be tolerated. As the season for final exams and papers draws near, I am taking this opportunity to remind students that the consequences of plagiarism can be devastating. For underclass students, the first offense is an "F" for the course, and the second offense if suspension for a semester. We do not refund your tuition. Even worse, for seniors and graduate students, even if it's a first offense, the penalty for plagiarism and other academic dishonesty is expulsion. Some of my saddest days at Trinity have been when I have had to sign expulsion letters in plagiarism cases. But there is no possible excuse for such behavior.

Ben Domenech's case is a morality tale. Plagiarism can kill a potentially great career. Don't let it happen to you.

More: ben domenech, plagiarism, washingtonpost.com, Washington Post,