the future of plagiarism

joanna bujes joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com
Mon Jun 24 14:12:10 PDT 2002


At 04:17 PM 06/24/2002 -0400, Carrol quoting a response from Susan Kalter wrote:
>It's amazing to me how this woman tries to mask an elitist contempt for
>student intelligence in a heroic rhetoric of anti-establishment-arianism
>and property-rights iconoclasm. No doubt there is an argument that our
>culture's concepts of intellectual property derive directly from the
>rise
>of capitalism and a hypocritically implemented hallowing of private
>property. Yet it is conceivable, and has been argued in certain venues,
>that ideas of intellectual property do not arise solely in capitalist
>economies but may and have arisen in noncapitalist economies.

Elitist? I didn't say students were stupid, I said they were for the most part incapable of original work as undergraduates. I do not think this is a fatal condition -- just the normal condition of post-secondary consciousness in the U.S. The point of college is to make them aware of their shortcomings and to help them overcome it. Whether that can happen has a lot to do with why students attend college and what kind of instruction they run into. My son, for example, took a freshman composition class in which every assignment consisted of summarizing a piece of work. This, I suppose, avoids the problem of plagiarism AND originality.

If she has concrete arguments to make about "intellectual property" outside of capitalism, I'd be interested in hearing them.


>I question whether this woman has ever run into a student who has
>intellectually impoverished him or herself by plagiarizing.

I have. A Chinese student who insisted on plagiarizing everything he turned in to me. I took him aside and told him I would be glad to help him with each and every assignment if he would only try to work through his fear/difficulty with English. He declined and he failed the class.


> Instead,
>she
>makes the term encompass so much that she erases very important
>distinctions between students and scholars who gratefully acknowledge
>that
>"the creation of new knowledge" is a collective endeavor and those few
>who
>cheat themselves (and coast by on the labor of others) by copying words
>they do not understand.

Sorry. 90% of normal research is plagiarism that is artfully disguised to look like learned commentary. Students just aren't quite "professional" enough to make that trick work.


>I thought that Marxists scholars were supposed
>to
>be committed to democratizing education, not to facilitating the
>superficial acquisition of the trappings of education without the
>accompanying understanding of what they have "learned."
>
>And, by the way, does she really believe that the banking model of
>education is the norm in 99% of the classrooms? I would like to see
>this
>imaginary "statistic" backed up with real evidence.

I am all for understanding and consciousness in education. I have seen very few examples of it either in my own education or in that of my children. I think that teaching students how to plagiarize--honestly--and pointing out how much of what passes for research and normative "thought" is nothing more than an example of plagiarism--can ultimately help them figure out the difference between professional scams and conscious critical thought.

I am also wondering why you sent this reply? Do you agree with this woman and find it more polite to use her words rather than your own?

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list