Stanley Fish has an interesting opinion piece in the NY Times “Opinionator” section in which he argues that the question of plagiarism is not one of philosophy or morality, but rather falls under the aegis of disciplinary rules.
And if you’re a student, plagiarism will seem to be an annoying guild imposition without a persuasive rationale (who cares?); for students, learning the rules of plagiarism is worse than learning the irregular conjugations of a foreign language. It takes years, and while a knowledge of irregular verbs might conceivably come in handy if you travel, knowledge of what is and is not plagiarism in this or that professional practice is not something that will be of very much use to you unless you end up becoming a member of the profession yourself. It follows that students who never quite get the concept right are by and large not committing a crime; they are just failing to become acclimated to the conventions of the little insular world they have, often through no choice of their own, wandered into. It’s no big moral deal; which doesn’t mean, I hasten to add, that plagiarism shouldn’t be punished — if you’re in our house, you’ve got to play by our rules — just that what you’re punishing is a breach of disciplinary decorum, not a breach of the moral universe. Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal
Honestly, I feel that Fish is putting forth a bit of a straw man argument here with his assumption that most of us involved with academia see the issue as a Big Moral Deal. In my experience, plagiarism occurs because the student doesn’t quite understand how and when citations are necessary, self-doubt in their ability to construct an argument, or sheer laziness. While sometimes annoying and certainly irksome to deal with, plagiarism by students is rarely treated as a Big Moral Deal and, if it is, I would absolutely side with Fish in denouncing such a stand. However, as a teacher, I have never taken such a stance and don’t feel that there is an overwhelming majority of teachers in higher education that will make Big Moral Judgements about their students.
I also wonder about his focus on student behavior. Not only does he seem to belittle college students and their ability to learn how to deal with citations, but he also shares an anecdote about finding his own work plagiarized by other academics. In fact, he ends his essay with the following:
This brings me back to the (true) story I began with. Whether there is something called originality or not, the two scholars who began their concluding chapter by reproducing two of my pages are professionally culpable. They took something from me without asking and without acknowledgment, and they profited — if only in the currency of academic reputation — from work that I had done and signed. That’s the bottom line and no fancy philosophical argument can erase it. Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal
On the one hand, he spends the bulk of his argument situating the question of plagiarism within an academic student/teacher dynamic, but bookends that with a story that, seemingly, demonstrates a situation where there is a moral argument to be made. Furthermore, there are plenty of situations that he doesn’t address that do seem open to moral considerations, such as journalism and political speech. Sure, he may dismiss such notions as complex and (for some bizarre reason) not applicable to politicians, but I would argue that there is more than just professional rules at play in those arenas. There is a public trust at stake in these rhetorical acts. The playing field here is not about getting a grade, but about informing the public, or persuading them one way or another on an issue or policy. There is a moral value to being truthful about whose words are being used in these situations. In part because we are not talking about undergraduate students struggling with new and arcane rules, but people who have been trained to do what they do and should, therefore, know better when they appropriate another person’s words for their own benefit.
Certainly, the lines are not always clear. Of course the issue of plagiarism can become murky and complex. That does not mean, however, that there are no moral repercussions to the act of plagiarism. If taken to it’s logical extreme, could Fish’s perspective in this essay be used to argue that there is no moral component to any rhetorical act?
Via Big Think. You should click on that link for Lindsay Beyerstein’s take on Fish’s article.
(From