|
|
|
| |
THE HONOR SYSTEM
|
|
I.
Introduction
Communities exist by virtue of some consensus on values, even though
that consensus may be imprecise and unspoken. In a university, it is
essential that there be universal acceptance of certain enduring and
specific standards of academic conduct. These standards of academic
conduct constitute the Honor Code and are enforced by students through
the Honor Board.
Wesleyan’s Honor System dates to 1893 when students were granted
the right to oversee the academic integrity of their education. The
Honor System depends upon the willingness of all members of the
University to adhere to the standards of academic behavior articulated in the
Honor Code. Every student must understand and accept this responsibility
as a condition of enrollment. This substantial responsibility is an
important aspect of a Wesleyan education. There is an inevitable tension
between the concept of individual creativity, effort, and achievement,
and the notion that in a university community, learning is a collective,
collaborative process. Both concepts are valid. Specifically, the Honor
Code regulates the individual conduct of students in academic matters
and is not meant to minimize the importance of collective learning. The
Honor Code exists because standards of conduct are essential for those
academic exercises where the goal is to elicit and assess the
intellectual and creative work of individuals.
The Honor System does not impose rigid forms and definitions where
flexibility is required. Consequently, the application of the Honor Code
in a particular course is left in part to the discretion of the
instructor and his/her students. The instructor is required to explain
to the class any unusual conditions that may have an impact on the
application of the code. Whenever there is any question about the
application of the code, the student is responsible for clarifying the
matter with the instructor. Likewise, the members of the Honor Board and
faculty must play an active role in helping students come to a better
understanding of the philosophy and mechanics of the system. The Honor
Board, which adjudicates violations of the Honor Code, exists for
several related reasons: to afford the protection of fair process to
students alleged to have violated the Honor Code, to ensure that
sanctions are commensurate with violations, and to promote uniformity in
the handling of cases. Furthermore, the Honor Board serves as a constant
reminder of institutional values. Initial adjudication of alleged
violations of the Honor Code must issue from the Honor Board.
The success of the Honor System depends upon the cooperation of the
entire community; in matters of academic integrity, students and faculty
are equally involved.
II. The Honor Code
A. The Pledge
Students pledge not to receive any assistance and not to engage in
any of the specific violations of the Honor Code outlined below.
Students must sign the pledge on any formal academic exercise if so
requested by the instructor concerned. The pledge reads, "Pledge,
no aid, no violations."
B. Acts Constituting a Violation of the Honor Code
The following six infractions constitute the basis for the Honor
Code:
- The attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic
exercise without due acknowledgment;
- Plagiarism;
- The submission of the same work for academic credit more than once
without permission;
- Willful falsification of data, information, or citations in any
formal academic exercise;
- Deception concerning adherence to the conditions set by the
instructor for the formal academic exercise;
- The failure to take constructive action in the event of committing
or observing a violation or an apparent violation.
C. Constructive Action
It is the responsibility of members of the University to take
constructive action in the case of committing or observing an apparent
violation of the Honor Code, though this does not imply that
constructive action requires the observer of an apparent violation to
report to a third party, e.g., a person other than the alleged violator.
The following procedures constitute means of taking constructive action:
- A student who believes his/her actions may conflict with the
principles of responsibility and integrity in the Honor Code must
discuss the matter with a member of the Honor Board as soon as
possible.
- If a person believes that the actions of a student might conflict
with the Honor Code, the person may discuss the matter as soon as
possible with the student concerned. If, after discussion, either
person remains concerned about a possible conflict with the code,
the student whose actions are in question must bring the matter to a
member of the Honor Board.
- The observer of an apparent violation may report the matter
directly to the Honor Board without consulting the alleged violator.
- The observer of an apparent violation may make a report to a
resident advisor, a faculty member, or other University official.
The person to whom the report is made shall discuss the matter as
soon as possible with the alleged violator or shall report the
matter to the Honor Board.
III. The Honor Board
A. The Honor System shall be directed and guided by the Honor Board.
No punitive action may be taken by a faculty member or University
official with respect to an alleged violation of the code unless fair
process is followed. In a particular case, a faculty member or
University official may make a confidential recommendation to the Honor
Board as to what he/she considers an appropriate penalty to be levied by
the board, but primary responsibility for implementation of the Honor
Code resides with the Honor Board.
B. The Honor Board shall consist of four student members, all with
vote.
- Of these four student members, two shall be juniors and two shall
be seniors. New members shall be selected by a panel of students
composed of the current members of the Honor Board and at least
three members of the Wesleyan Student Assembly. Normally, both
juniors shall be reappointed for a second year. One of these juniors
shall become chair in his/her senior year, although both may serve
as co-chairs during their second year.
- The dean of the college shall serve as an ex officio member of the
Honor Board.
IV. Fair Process
A. The Honor Board shall extend fair process as defined in the
Guidelines for University Disciplinary Proceedings. (See Joint Statement
on the Rights and Freedoms of Students available online at www.wesleyan.edu/studenthandbook/
appendix.ctt.)
B. An individual shall receive notice, in writing, of the specific
charges brought against him/her. Such charges must be presented within a
time adequate to allow for the preparation of his/her defense. At the
time of receiving such notice, the person shall also be informed of
his/her rights and of the procedure of the board before which he/she
will appear.
C. An individual shall have the right to a hearing scheduled without
unnecessary delay and shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
D. An individual has the right to an advisor of his/her choice from
within the University.
E. An individual has the right to summon witnesses in reasonable
number and to question them personally or through an advisor. Similarly,
the individual shall have the right to know the identity of his/her
accuser(s) and witnesses to the alleged violation. At the summons of
either the board or the accused, any member of the University, unless
exempted by this section, has the obligation to testify as extensively
as the board may require.
F. An individual shall have the right to an open or closed hearing at
his/her discretion. A hearing is confined to the taking of evidence and
the hearing of witnesses. The Honor Board reserves the right to a closed
session for its deliberations.
G. At the hearing, all evidence and testimony bearing upon the
alleged violation shall be introduced in the presence of the individual,
who shall have the right to challenge any evidence and question any
witness. No member of the University staff with whom an accused has
entered into a confidential relationship shall be called upon by the
Honor Board to give evidence or information arising from that
relationship without the permission of the person appearing before the
judicial body. This shall not prevent an accused from calling persons
with whom he/she has entered into confidential relationships to give
evidence arising from that relationship. Through the permission of the
accused, the witness who imparts confidential information must testify
with regard to this specific information in response to questions from
the board, except that nothing in these provisions is to be construed to
require any person to violate the ethics of his/her profession. H. A
written summary of the decision shall be available for inspection by
members of the University. The summation shall include a general
statement of the charges, the judgment, and the rationale for the
decision where necessary. The summation shall not name the accused or
any witnesses nor include any information unnecessary to apprise members
of the community of the charges or the judgment.9
I. A finding of violation shall require the unanimous vote of the
board.
J. In cases of violation, the board shall invoke such penalties as it
sees fit. All decisions of the Honor Board shall be reported to the dean
of the college, who is responsible for the implementation of the
decision.
K. Appeal of Honor Board decisions may be taken to the president.
L. Except as explained herein and required by the procedures of the
Honor Board, or as permitted by the written consent of the accused, all
members of the Honor Board have an obligation to treat as confidential
the proceedings of any case.
M. For cases that are filed after the Honor Board has left campus
after the end of the spring semester, students have the option of
requesting a hearing before the dean of the college along with at least
one Honor Board member, provided that the faculty member bringing the
case is also available. This option can be exercised only when the
aforementioned parties are present. This policy is designed for
situations in which (1) the student opts to proceed with the case over
the summer instead of waiting for a hearing before the full Honor Board
during the following fall semester, or (2) the student needs to have the
case adjudicated in order to take part in a University approved
study-abroad program during the fall semester to determine class
standing.
N. An individual who fails to appear for a duly scheduled Honor Board
hearing must present documentation to the dean of the college and Honor
Board verifying an emergency, such as family or medical, that prevented
attendance. The dean of the college and the Honor Board will decide
together whether the excuse warrants a rescheduled hearing. Failure to
appear without a valid excuse constitutes a forfeiture of the privilege
of a formal Honor Board Hearing, as it is defined under the Joint
Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students, Section VI, Procedural
Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings, Section D, Hearing Committee
Procedures (available online at www.wesleyan.edu/studenthandbook/appendix.ctt).
If the dean of the college and the Honor Board determine that the
individual has forfeited the privilege, the individual will not be
entitled to reschedule an Honor Board Hearing, and the case will be
adjudicated by the Honor Board without the student being given an
opportunity to appear before the Honor Board.
V. Records
The decision of the Honor Board shall be reported to the dean of the
college. The dean of the college shall receive written reports from the
Honor Board, and a copy, together with the paper or papers involved in
the violation of the Honor Code, shall be preserved in the records of
the Honor Board.
VI. Penalties
Violations of the Honor Code are among the most serious offenses an
individual may commit at Wesleyan. The Honor Board shall invoke
penalties at its discretion, up to, and including, dismissal from the
University.
|
|
|
Plagiarism
The Honor Code to which students subscribe upon entering Wesleyan is
merely a special application of the unwritten code that governs all academic and scholarly
affairs. Scholars on whatever level must represent their findings
truthfully. This means, first, that they will
not tamper with the truth as they see it. It means, second, that they will not offer as theirs what others discovered or wrote—will not be guilty of plagiarism. These responsibilities apply equally to professor, researcher, and student. Nearly all Wesleyan students mean to be honest, but some do not appreciate the extent to which plagiarism is dishonest. It is important to recognize that plagiarism is theft, not of ideas, which are in a sense the property of everyone, but of the credit for originating ideas. Plagiarism is also fraud—intentional deception in order to obtain what does not rightfully belong to one—for a student who plagiarizes attempts to get from the instructor an unearned grade and from the University an unearned degree. And, of course, he plagiarist also affronts the rest of the student body. Plagiarism, finally, is impersonation, since every piece of written work presents an image of its author.
For this last reason, plagiarism is particularly damaging to the
plagiarist. Just as an impersonator may get
lost among assumed roles, a plagiarist will almost certainly have a false understanding of himself/herself, and of the education he/she is getting. "Theft," "fraud," and "impersonation " are harsh words, but they accurately represent the moral status of plagiarism and the severe prevailing attitude toward it. Students who use another's ideas or language without giving credit violate the most basic agreement between students and the University; they attack the academic enterprise at its heart. If students realize this, they will hardly plagiarize intentionally, unless they are very cynical indeed. Unfortunately, the proper use of other people's work is a delicate business, and students do sometimes plagiarize without intending to do so. Moreover, education consists almost entirely in the proper use of other people's ideas, so that what the University asks you to do bears a certain resemblance to what it asks you not to do. Inevitably, and rightly, a large part of what any student can produce comes from books, from instructors, and from other students. Nearly as bad as plagiarism would be a total refusal to be influenced by what other people have written or said, i.e., to participate in the educational interchange. Thus it is necessary that all students familiarize themselves at the outset (if they are not already familiar) with the difference between legitimate and illegitimate borrowings. Those who are uncertain should find the following essay helpful.
"Definition of Plagiarism"
By Harold C. Martin1
The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the manufacturer who mislabels his products is the plagiarist; the student or scholar who leads his reader to believe that what he is reading is the original work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the distinction between plagiarism and honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone's mind, there would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes men of good will draw the suspicion of guilt upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of certain kinds of "borrowing" and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those gained through independent research and reflection.
The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word copying of another's writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes, of course, the copying of all or any part of another student's paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly apt term, which one has come across in reading and which so admirably expresses one's opinion that one is tempted to make it personal property. Between these poles there are degrees and degrees, but they may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit—but more the result perhaps, of laziness than of bad intent—is the patching together of random jottings made in the course of reading, generally without careful identification of their source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people's ideas and words, the writer's sole contribution being the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honesty, though still dishonest, is the paraphrase, an abbreviated (and often skillfully prepared) restatement of someone else's analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person's text has been the basis for the recapitulation.
The examples given below should make clear the dishonest and the proper use of source material. If instances occur which these examples do not seem to cover, conscience will in all likelihood be prepared to supply advice.
The Source2
The importance of the Second Treatise of Government printed in this volume is such that without it we should miss some of the familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke's insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke's writing. It renders explicit and adapts to the British politics of his day the trend and aim of writers from Languet and Bodin through Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of the distant ancients, Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law. It sums up magisterially the arguments used through the ages to attack authority vested in a single individual, but it does so from the particular point of view engendered by the Revolution of 1688 and is in harmony with the British scene and mental climate of the growing bourgeoisie of that age. Montesquieu and Rousseau, the framers of our own Declaration of Independence, and the statesmen (or should we say merchants and spectators?) who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. In the hands of these it has been the quarry of liberal doctrines; and that it has served the Socialist theory of property based on labor is its final proof of breadth of view.
A. Word-for-Word Plagiarizing
It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of Government to our own democracy. Without it we should miss some of the most familiar features of our own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a result of Locke's insistence upon the separation of powers; and that the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the relationship may not be consciously traced. The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the statesmen who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. All these are marks of the influence of Locke's Second Treatise on our own way of life.
In this example, after composing half of a first sentence, the writer copies exactly what is in the original text, leaving out the center section of the paragraph and omitting the names of Montesquieu and Rousseau where he takes up the text again. The last sentence is also the writer's own.
If the writer had enclosed all the copied text in quotation marks and had identified the source in a footnote, he would not have been liable to the charge of plagiarism; a reader might justifiably have felt, however, that the writer's personal contribution to the discussion was not very significant.
B. The Mosaic
The crystallizing force of Locke's writing may be seen in the effect his Second Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal are modern examples. But even the foundations of our state—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—have re-echoed its claims for human liberty, for the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private property. True, the influence of others is also marked in our Constitution—from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and Bodin, Hooker and Grotius, to say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law; but the fundamental influence is Locke's Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines.
Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original text and moved into new patterns:
crystallizing force of Locke's writing
some of the familiar features of our own government
much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court
combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal
have re-echoed its claims for human liberty . . . property
from the trend and aim . . . Grotius
to say nothing of Aristotle and . . . natural law
quarry of liberal doctrines
As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a procedure. To put every stolen phrase within quotation marks would produce an almost unreadable, and quite worthless, text.
C. The Paraphrase
Paraphrase: Many fundamental aspects of our own government are
Original: Many familiar features of our own government are
apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. One can safely
apparent in the Second Treatise of Government. It is safe to
say that the oft-censured Supreme Court really owes its existence
assert that the much criticized . . . court obtained its being as
once to the Lockeian demand that powers in government be kept
a result of Locke's insistence upon the separation of powers;
separate; equally one can say that the allocation of varied
and that the combination of many powers
and widespread authority to the president during the era of
in the hands of the executive under the
the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is
New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is
contrary to the principles enunciated therein . . . Once more it
contrary to the principles enunciated therein . . . Again we see
is possible to note the way in which Locke's writing clarified existing opinion
the crystallizing force of Locke's writing.
The foregoing interlinear presentation shows clearly how the writer has simply traveled along with the original text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except where his understanding fails him, as it does with "crystallizing," or where the ambiguity of the original is too great a tax on his ingenuity for him to proceed, as it is with "to encounter opposition . . . consciously traced" in the original.
Such a procedure as the one shown in this example has its uses; for one thing, it is valuable for the student's own understanding of the passage; and it may be valuable for the reader as well. How, then, may it be properly used? The procedure is simple. The writer might begin the second sentence with: "As Sherman notes in the introduction to his edition of the Treatise, one can safely say . . ." and conclude the paraphrased passage with a footnote giving the additional identification necessary. Or he might indicate directly the exact nature of what he is doing, in this fashion: "To paraphrase Sherman's comment . . ." and conclude that also with a footnote indicator.
In point of fact this source does not particularly lend itself to honest paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence which the paraphraser above copied without change except for abridgement. The purpose of paraphrase should be to simplify or to throw a new and significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be honestly used and should rarely be resorted to by the student except for the purpose, as was suggested above, of his personal enlightenment.
D. The "Apt" Term
The Second Treatise of Government is a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force of Locke's writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human liberty, the principle of separation of powers, and the inviolability of private property—all three, major dogmas of American constitutionalism—owe their presence in our Constitution in large part to the remarkable Treatise, which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to spark, within three years, a revolution in the land of its author's birth and, ninety years later, another revolution against that land.
Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two striking terms—"quarry of liberal doctrines" and "crystallizing force"; a perfectly proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase; The Second Treatise of Government is, to use Sherman's suggestive expression, a "quarry of liberal doctrines." In it the "crystallizing force"—the term again is Sherman's—of Locke's writing is markedly apparent. . .
Other phrases in the text above—"the cause of human liberty," "the principle of the separation of powers," "the inviolability of private property"—are clearly drawn directly from the original source but are so much matters in the public domain, so to speak, that no one could reasonably object to their re-use in this fashion.
Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious offense, and the punishment for it is commensurately severe. What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by anyone but himself; what the student who plagiarizes and "gets away with it" suffers is less public and probably less acute, but the corruptness of his act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must inevitably leave a mark on him as well as on the institution of which he is a member.
Mr. Martin's remarks cover the use of written sources. A number of problems also arise that have to do with use of ideas picked up in the classroom or in conversations. In general, it is not necessary to give credit to Professor A for his ideas in a paper submitted to him; but a paper submitted to Professor B should acknowledge Professor A's influence. Discussion with other students will produce understanding of a general sort that need not be traced to its origin, but whenever discussion contributes something specific to the writing of a paper, that contribution should be noted. In ambiguous cases it is best to err on the side of being overscrupulous. Finally, it is legitimate to have a friend read a draft of a paper and comment on its clarity, logic, or accuracy. Such assistance should be acknowledged; and in no case should the assistance extend to rewriting.
It is impossible, in a brief treatment of this sort, to anticipate every problem that can arise in the use of sources. But the principle is clear: Always give credit for ideas and phrasings that do not originate with you, except when they are commonplace or when they are so familiar in the context of a given course that the instructor could not mistake your intention. This is a rigorous principle, rigorously applied at Wesleyan. It is also an honorable one, and adherence to it is one of the satisfactions of a mature student who is getting an honest education.
1 From Harold C. Martin, Richard M. Ohman, and James H. Wheatly, The Logic and Rhetoric of Expansion, 3rd ed. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
2 Charles L. Sherman, Introduction to John Locke: Treatise on Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration
|
|
|
"Definition of Plagiarism "
By Harold C. Martin 1
The academic counterpart of the bank embezzler and of the
manufacturer who mislabels his products is
the plagiarist; the student or scholar who leads his reader to believe
that what he is reading is the original
work of the writer when it is not. If it could be assumed that the
distinction between plagiarism and
honest use of sources is perfectly clear in everyone ’s mind, there
would be no need for the explanation that follows; merely the warning with which this definition concludes
would be enough. But it is apparent that sometimes men of good will draw the suspicion of guilt
upon themselves (and, indeed, are guilty) simply because they are not aware of the illegitimacy of
certain kinds of "borrowing " and of the procedures for correct identification of materials other than those
gained through independent research
and reflection.
The spectrum is a wide one. At one end there is a word-for-word
copying of another ’s writing without enclosing the copied passage in quotation marks and identifying it in
a footnote, both of which are necessary. (This includes,
of course, the copying of all or any part of
another student ’s paper.) It hardly seems possible that anyone of college age or more could do that
without clear intent to deceive. At the other end there is the almost casual slipping in of a particularly
apt term, which one has come across in reading and which so admirably expresses one’s opinion that one is
tempted to make it personal property. Between these poles there are degrees and
degrees, but they
may be roughly placed in two groups. Close to outright and blatant deceit —but more the result
perhaps, f laziness than of bad intent —is the patching together of random jottings made in the
course of reading, generally without careful identification of their
source, and then woven into the text, so that the result is a mosaic of other people ’s ideas and
words, the writer ’s sole contribution being
the cement to hold the pieces together. Indicative of more effort
and, for that reason, somewhat closer to honesty, though still
dishonest, is the paraphrase, an abbreviated (and often skillfully
prepared) restatement
of someone else ’s analysis or conclusion, without acknowledgment that another person ’s text has
been the basis for the recapitulation.
The examples given below should make clear the dishonest and the
proper use of source material. If
instances occur which these examples do not seem to
cover, conscience
will in all likelihood be prepared to supply advice.
The Source 2
The importance of the Second Treatise of Government printed in this
volume is such that without it we
should miss some of the familiar features of our own
government. It is
safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained its being as a
result of Locke ’s insistence upon the separation of powers;
and that the combination of many powers in
the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is contrary
to the principles enunciated therein, the effect of which is not
spent, though the relationship may not be
consciously traced. Again we see the crystallizing force of Locke ’s
writing. It renders explicit and
adapts to the British politics of his day the trend and aim of writers from Languet and Bodin through Hooker and
Grotius, to say nothing of the distant ancients,
Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural law. It
sums up magisterially the arguments used through the ages to attack authority vested in a single
individual, but it does so from the particular point of view engendered by the Revolution of 1688 and is in harmony
with the British scene and mental climate of the growing bourgeoisie of that
age. Montesquieu and Rousseau, the framers of our own Declaration of
Independence, and the statesmen (or should we say
merchants and spectators?) who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human
liberty, for
the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private
property. In the hands of these it has been the
quarry of liberal doctrines; and that it has served the Socialist theory of property based on labor is its
final proof of breadth of view.
A. Word-for-Word Plagiarizing
It is not hard to see the importance of the Second Treatise of
Government to our own democracy. Without it we should miss some of the most familiar features of our
own government. It is safe to assert that the much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court obtained
its being as a result of Locke ’s insistence upon the separation of
powers; and that the combination of
many powers in the hands of the executive under the New Deal has still to encounter opposition
because it is contrary to the principles enunciated
therein, the effect of which is not spent, though the
relationship may not be consciously traced.
The framers of our own Declaration of Independence and the
statesmen who drew up the Constitution have re-echoed its claims for human
liberty, for the
separation of powers, for the sanctity of private
property. All these are marks of the influence of Locke ’s
Second Treatise on our own way of life.
In this example, after composing half of a first
sentence, the writer
copies exactly what is in the original text,
leaving out the center section of the paragraph and omitting the
names of Montesquieu and Rousseau where he takes up the text
again. The last sentence is also
the writer ’s own.
If the writer had enclosed all the copied text in quotation marks and
had identified the source in a footnote, he would not have been liable to the charge of
plagiarism; a
reader might justifiably have felt, however,
that the writer ’s personal contribution to the discussion
was not very significant.
B. The Mosaic
The crystallizing force of Locke ’s writing may be seen in the
effect his Second
Treatise of Government had in shaping some of the familiar features of our own
government. That much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court and the combination of many powers in the hands
of the executive under the New Deal are modern
examples. But even the foundations of our state —the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution —have re-echoed its claims for human
liberty, for
the separation of powers, for the sanctity of private
property. True, the influence of others is also
marked in our Constitution —from the trend and aim of writers like Languet and
Bodin, Hooker and Grotius, to
say nothing of Aristotle and the Stoic school of natural
law; but the fundamental influence is Locke
’s Treatise, the very quarry of liberal doctrines.
Note how the following phrases have been lifted out of the original
text and moved into new patterns:
crystallizing force of Locke ’s writing
some of the familiar features of our own government
much criticized branch known as the Supreme Court
combination of many powers in the hands of the executive under the
New Deal
have re-echoed its claims for human liberty ...property
from the trend and aim ...Grotius
to say nothing of Aristotle and ...natural law
quarry of liberal doctrines
As in the first example, there is really no way of legitimizing such a
procedure. To put every stolen
phrase within quotation marks would produce an almost unreadable, and
quite worthless, text.
C. The Paraphrase
Paraphrase: Many fundamental aspects of our own government are
Original: Many familiar features of our own government are
apparent in the Second
Treatise of Government .One
can safely
apparent in the Second
Treatise of Government .It
is safe to
say that the oft-censured Supreme Court really owes its existence
assert that the much criticized ...court obtained its being as
once to the Lockeian demand that powers in government be kept
a result of Locke ’s insistence upon the separation of powers;
separate;equally one can say that the allocation of varied
and that the combination of many powers
and widespread authority to the president during the era of
in the hands of the executive under the
the New Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is
New
Deal has still to encounter opposition because it is
contrary to the principles enunciated therein ...Once more it
contrary to the principles enunciated therein ...Again we see
is possible to note the way in which Locke ’s writing clarified
existing opinion
the crystallizing force of Locke’s writing.
The foregoing interlinear presentation shows clearly how the writer
has simply traveled along with the original
text, substituting approximately equivalent terms except
where his understanding fails him, as it does with "crystallizing," or where the ambiguity of the
original is too great a tax on his ingenuity for him to
proceed, as it is with "to encounter opposition
...consciously traced " in the original.
Such a procedure as the one shown in this example has its
uses; for
one thing, it is valuable for the student ’s own understanding of the
passage; and it may be valuable
for the reader as well. How, then, may it be properly
used? The procedure is simple. The writer might
begin the second sentence with:" As Sherman notes in the introduction to his edition of the
Treatise, one
can safely say ..." and conclude the paraphrased passage with a footnote giving the additional
identification necessary. Or he might indicate directly the exact nature of what he is
doing, in this
fashion: "To paraphrase Sherman ’s comment ..." and conclude that also with a footnote indicator.
In point of fact this source does not particularly lend itself to
honest paraphrase, with the exception of that one sentence which the paraphraser above copied without change
except for abridgement. The purpose of paraphrase should be to simplify or to throw a new and
significant light on a text; it requires much skill if it is to be honestly used and should rarely be resorted
to by the student except for the purpose,
as was suggested above, of his personal enlightenment.
D.The "Apt " Term
The Second
Treatise of Government is
a veritable quarry of liberal doctrines. In it the crystallizing force
of Locke ’s writing is markedly apparent. The cause of human
liberty, the principle of separation of powers,
and the inviolability of private property —all three, major
dogmas of American constitutionalism —owe their presence in our Constitution in large
part to the remarkable Treatise, which first appeared around 1685 and was destined to
spark, within three
years, a revolution in the land of its author’s birth
and, ninety years later, another revolution against
that land.
Here the writer has not been able to resist the appropriation of two
striking terms —"quarry of liberal doctrines " and "crystallizing force ";a perfectly
proper use of the terms would have required only the addition of a phrase;
The
Second Treatise of Government is, to
use Sherman ’s suggestive expression, a "quarry of liberal doctrines." In it the
"crystallizing force "—the term again is Sherman’s —of
Locke’s writing is markedly apparent...
Other phrases in the text above —"the cause of human
liberty," "the principle of the separation of powers," "the inviolability of private property "—are
clearly drawn directly from the original source but are so much matters in the public
domain, so to speak, that no one
could reasonably object to their re-use in this fashion.
Since one of the principal aims of a college education is the
development of intellectual honesty, it is obvious that plagiarism is a particularly serious
offense, and the
punishment for it is commensurately severe.
What a penalized student suffers can never really be known by
anyone but himself; what the student who plagiarizes and "gets away with it " suffers is
less public and probably less acute,, but the corruptness of his
act, the disloyalty and baseness it entails, must
inevitably leave a mark on him as well as on the institution of which he is a member.
*****
Mr. Martin’s remarks cover the use of written
sources. A number of
problems also arise that have to do with use of ideas picked up in the classroom or in
conversations. In general, it is not necessary to give credit to Professor A for his ideas in a paper submitted to
him; but a
paper submitted to Professor B should acknowledge Professor A ’s
influence. Discussion with other
students will produce understanding
of a general sort that need not be traced to its origin, but whenever
discussion contributes something specific to the writing of a
paper, that contribution should be noted. In ambiguous cases it is best to err
on the side of being overscrupulous. Finally, it is legitimate to have
a friend read a draft of a paper and comment on its
clarity, logic, or accuracy. Such assistance should be acknowledged; and in no case
should the assistance extend to rewriting.
It is impossible, in a brief treatment of this sort, to anticipate
every problem that can arise in the use of sources.
But the principle is clear: Always give credit for ideas and
phrasings that do not originate with you,
except when they are commonplace or when they are so familiar in
the context of a given course
that the instructor could not mistake your intention. This is a
rigorous principle, rigorously applied at Wesleyan.
It is also an honorable one, and adherence to it is one of
the satisfactions of a mature student who is getting an honest education.
1 From Harold C. Martin, Richard M. Ohman, and James H.
Wheatly, The
Logic and Rehtoric of Expansion,
3rd ed. (New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1969
2 Charles L. Sherman, Introduction
to John Locke: Treatise on Civil Government and a Letter Concerning
Toleration
|
|
|
