On "The Anxieties of Authorship"

First point (Actually, this was my last point, but I think it is the most interesting, so I put it up front in case you didn't want to read the rest! You're welcome.) I found the discussion of gatekeepers vs. facilitators interesting. I agree that as teachers we are both but probably lean toward one side more than the other. Where do I lean? I think I am a gatekeeper. When I discover plagiarism by a student, I almost immediately play facilitator and use the experience as a learning opportunity to teach the value of originality to the student as well as academic integrity. But, when plagiarism happens mulitple times by the same student, all badly done too, then I become gate keeper and let that student know that dishonest academic practices weaken the whole system and the learning community. That person is not banned, but that person has to earn the way back in, has to earn the good graces of the gatekeepers through proven scholarship.

Howard says this about the gatekeeper, and I find it interesting: "[Gatekeepers] believe that gatekeeping is the fundamental function of pedagogy, and that the gate in question is not to the academy, but to the society that sponsors the academy. The function of education . . . is to make sure that the dominated remain under control; that the dominant are able, as a result of education, to walk through the gates of power" (29). Now, as politically incorrect as that may sound, I tend to agree with it, but with reservations about who the dominant are or who they should be. First, I think that the non-status quo should always be on the move to wrestle power away from the status quo; otherwise, change never happens. If the status quo power is illegitimate, say racist or sexist or fascist, then the non-dominant must seek to become the dominant. But, much of the world actually works, which sometimes we don't readily acknowldege. Lots of good peopel wield good power in this world. I trust myself as a teacher. I trust most of my colleagues and admire many and try to emulate them. Those academic leaders, institutional leaders, political and spiritual leaders, artistic leaders, who have the as their core values the recognizable "Good," then I believe that these dominators should be enabled to continue to dominate. One of the enlightened values of the "Good" dominators should be humility and the understanding that there is always a better way and that no one can own the truth. I believe that our society, being the democratic institution that it is, fears intellectual domination, and yet, I would prefer to have the educated be the dominant leaders--I want the smart people to be at the forefront of our society.

I believe then that as a gatekeeper, I do try to groove the "elite" for the future responsibilities of being leaders. The color, shape, size, and gender of the elite needs to change. The look of the elite needs to be the people, and no one should be kept out of the ranks of the elite other than those who who cannot handle the academic, free thinking, intellectual rigor necessary to perceive new ideas and to originate new ideas. Everyone is capable; the few stand up and do it. If someone can do it outside the box of academia, great. But within the institution, power should go to the best educated, and the best educated should be those that understand the goal of true freedom, equality, and integrity of the human mind and the small place we have in the universe. So, I guess there is one disagreement with the Howard statement about gatekeepers--the true nature of the gatekeeper is not to make sure the dominated stay under control, but to make sure that freedom is accessible to those who have been under the thumb of control, and to realize that freedom doesn't come with a stamp of "Because your are American, you are free." Freedom can only come with the greatest amount of responsibility ready to be worn. Plagiarism, I would argue, erodes freedom and enables submission.

My definition of plagiarism? I would define plagiarism as the appropriation of another author's words and ideas to be used by an author in his or her own writing without acknowledgment of the source. I would agree that there are degrees of plagiarism, and that would depend upon the willfullness of the act. If one isn't aware of what he or she is doing, that is still plagiarism but not as morally deficient as willfully appropriating someone else's words and ideas as one's own.

Have I plagairized? No doubt. I'm sure I have. I'm sure I've delivered lectures and notes on ideas that I have gleaned from sources I did not credit. That does not make it right--just makes me accountable for being more academically honest. I have appropriated Amy D's entire curriculum and adapted it as my own for the PEOPLE Writing Workshop. That would be appropriation to be sure. If the students were under the impression that the course was designed soley by me and Amy was not credited in my syllabus, then I would be guilty of plagiarism. I do think that teachers borrow heavily, and smart teachers borrow good stuff. Since Amy's syllabus was darn good, then I must be smart. But, I do think it is professionally ethical that when one does borrow that one does credit the source. This is only fair and practices what we preach.

When Howard brings up the issue of teachers plagairizing in their lectures, I think she brings up a solid question. I have wondered about this for a long time, and I try to credit my sources whenever I remember to. Sometimes, just from research and reading without taking notes, I appropriate ideas that may not be mine; however, I still try to point out that the idea I'm teaching isn't my original idea but comes from other critics or scholars. When I borrow another teacher's assignment, I try to acknowledge the teacher who originated the assignment.

Students who claim that the system itself pushes plagiarism in such forums as notetaking raise a few good issues. First of all, taking notes, remembering what a teacher teaches, and being able to explain it back or remediate it, is a form of showing what one has learned. Presumably, what has been taught is useful; showing that one has accumulated that useful knowledge is not plagiarism. It is a plank in the learning platform, I guess. If repetition of what the teacher says is the end of the teacher's learning objectives, then the issue is not plagiarism but low ended learning goals that will encourage a kind of plagiaristic thinking. But, if the goals of teaching are synthesis, analysis, criticism, persuasion, and orginality, then repeating basic planks of the learning platform is one necessary step toward that original thinking.

Nothing is original. I don't agree. Most is derivative, yes, for sure, and therefore, what is original thinking and what is just copy cat thinking does lead us into some ambiguous waters. I teach under the belief that everyone is capable of original thought but that some are more equipped to do it than others, for whatever reasons. While some students may come in with an unfair advantage of family background with academic values in place, the ability to think originally is still a democratic ability--everyone can do it. Similarily, students who come in with the best academic values in place are equally as capable of falling short of them. I believe that when I teach literature I employ the scaffolding method of learning. Lots of material is out there for me to retrieve and retool into my own lessons; however, throughout the process, the scaffolding falls away and original ideas occur. They are bubbles that come floating out of my head, pink ones (just seeing if anyone has actually read this far!)