wcj19.1 gruber

The Writing Center Journal, Volume 19, Number 1, Fall/Winter 1998

The Writing Center Journal48

Coming to Terms with Contradictions:Online Materials, Plagiarism,and the Writing Center

Sibylle Gruber

Some Introductory Thoughts

Writing centers, in the most general terms, provide tutoring tohelp students develop and organize writing assignments. Certainly, awriting center also encompasses other roles and responsibilities. Studentsmostly see it as a “safe place,” a positive, supportive, and collaborativeenvironment where tutors encourage and work with students on a one-on-one basis (see also Murphy; Harris; Fitzgerald). Most writing centers alsomake sure that tutors don’t judge student work and don’t put a grade on thepaper. While policies differ from center to center, students, in most cases,are also promised that their visits are confidential, and that generallyinstructors do not have access to the information collected in the writingcenter.

However, from time to time, writing centers become immersed inconflicts between students and instructors. For instance, instructors call inand want to know whether a student visited the writing center, or they askstudents to bring a signed form that acknowledges their visit. Studentssometimes assume that their visits and the consultations assure them an Aor at least a B, and they come back enraged if the paper that they workedon in the writing center does not get the expected high grade. These issuescan be irritating to students, tutors, instructors, and the writing centeradministrator but usually do not pose insurmountable problems. They canoften be solved by establishing writing center policies to create an equalplaying field for all involved. Writing centers, however, also “havecomplex, often conflicting responsibilities to groups of people and admin-istrative units that extend far beyond the walls of the center itself ”(Pemberton 15). Because of these responsibilities, then, specific policies

Trimbur, John. “Peer Tutoring: A Contradiction in Terms?” TheWriting Center Journal 7.2 (1987): 21-28.

Susan Blau is the Writing Director at Boston University’s College ofCommunication where she directs the undergraduate writing program andthe writing center. She has published articles about writing across thecurriculum programs, computer use in the classroom, and affective issuesin writing center practice. John Hall is the Assistant Director of theCollege of Communication Writing Center at Boston University. Heteaches communication writing and has published film essays and re-views. Tracy Strauss, a former writing fellow and graduate student infilm/screenwriting at Boston College, is now Assistant Director of Alumniand Parent Relations at SUNY Geneseo, and writes feature film screen-plays.

51Coming to Terms with ContradictionsThe Writing Center Journal50

and often contradictory reactions of teachers themselves. Some seeplagiarism as a result of student inexperience with academic discourseconventions. Others are less forgiving of students’ “forgetfulness” andwant to see students held accountable for their actions. Brenda Bear, in ane-mail exchange about plagiarism on NCTE-Talk, for example, points out:

I don’t “gleefully” punish my students for wrongdoing, but myrole as teacher is to teach more than British literature or sentencestructure. I would be failing in my responsibility if I did not setguidelines for my students and give consequences when thoseguidelines are not met . . . . I think students already have the ideathat it is not wrong to cheat; it is only wrong to get caught. If wecontinue to make excuses for students who blatantly cheat, we areteaching them that it isn’t even wrong to get caught if you have acompassionate teacher who is understanding and willing to givethem a break . . . . (17 March 1998)

Bear sees it as the teacher’s responsibility to call students on their actionsin order to avoid further encouragement of what she perceives as “blatant”wrongdoing.

Questions of plagiarism and dishonesty become even more com-plicated when students incorporate not only print sources but also onlinesources in their papers. Online texts, in many cases, are harder to trace thanbooks and articles in the library. Since many sites are fluid, ever-changing,and less structured than an academic linear text, students assign differentmeaning to copying passages from a web page than from a published andprinted source. Alan Purves points out that hypertext is often consideredanarchic, and with it, the text “appears to cede authority to the reader” (ix).Such cessation of authority is then misconstrued by students as a freedomto appropriate the source for their own uses. Additionally, because theinformation is not “on paper,” students may seem to think they are nottaking anything concrete, traceable, or with substance. Furthermore, thedifferent medium and with it the different perceptions of what is consid-ered “text” add to misunderstandings of what can be extracted from aparticular site. For example, students are often unsure whether it islegitimate to make a copy of a picture integrated into the text.

Enter: The Writing Center

Trained Writing Tutors are ready to help you develop andorganize your writing assignments. We can provide weeklytutoring, several sessions to help you with specific problems or

might not always provide a clear solution to a controversial issue.This article examines a serious dilemma involving a student’s

blatant attempt at plagiarism of an online text. By analyzing the textsgenerated through an exchange between a writing center staff member andthe student’s instructor, a number of concerns emerge concerning con-flicting roles of the writing center in upholding itself as a safe place forstudents and/or as a place that takes it upon itself to uphold academicintegrity and honesty. This essay doesn’t offer a simple answer, but itraises a number of concerns that can become the starting point for tutortraining workshops and for further explorations of what we have toconsider when making decisions about confidentiality and academicintegrity in the writing center.

Academic Integrity

Plagiarism is taking the writings, ideas, or thoughts of others andpassing them off as one’s own original work. Plagiarism is notrestricted to published material: if you submit an old paper writtenby a roommate, if you buy a paper from a “service,” or even if youbase a paper on a lecture you heard in a course without acknowl-edging that lecture, you are still guilty of plagiarism. Plagiarismis not restricted to long quotations; if you quote a sentence or evena memorable phrase without acknowledging it, you are plagiariz-ing. You can plagiarize without using the exact words of theoriginal author; if you paraphrase a passage without crediting it,you are plagiarizing. (Millward 14)

Syllabi, course guides, and handbooks provide students withinformation on academic integrity and the problems associated withplagiarism. Still some students’ dishonesty might go undetected, whileothers might be confronted by the teacher, fail a class, or expelled from theacademic institution. The penalty for the offense, in most cases, is left tothe discretion of the instructor.

Often, when asked about their plagiarism, students either deny theaccusations or claim to be unaware of any offense they committed. Theydon’t consider themselves guilty of violating university regulations, butinstead accuse the instructor of being too narrow-minded and intolerant oftheir creative efforts. For them, it is incomprehensible that not acknowl-edging a source can lead to such severe actions as expulsion from theuniversity.

This incomprehension, of course, is strengthened by the diverse


Step 1: The Session

Jeff came into the Writing Center to ask for help with a paper forhis upper-division Philosophy class.2 After signing in and filling out thepaperwork, he was paired with Michael, a graduate tutor who was enrolledin a Master’s program in English and also taught English 105, theintroductory composition course for NAU undergraduates. Michael satdown with Jeff, and together they went over some strategies that wouldimprove the structure of his paper. They also worked on sentence levelissues of the draft and the session went well; the exchange was lively, andJeff was happy with the input he received. Before the session ended, Jeffwanted Michael’s comments on his introduction. He was quite proud ofit and informed Michael that he had actually taken it from a text publishedon the World Wide Web. He even showed Michael a print-out of the pageand then wanted to confirm that he didn’t need to cite this source since itwas taken from a web site. Michael told him that not giving credit to hissource would be dishonest and could get him into trouble. However, Jefftold Michael that his instructor never used the web and the likelihood ofgetting caught was basically non-existent. Michael was not able toconvince him that this comprised a serious breach of academic honesty.Jeff left without changing his mind about documenting his source.Instead, he was annoyed that Michael gave him a lecture on academicintegrity and plagiarism.

Step 2: Consulting with the Writing Center Administrator

Michael, who had been tutoring for almost a year, had neverencountered a situation where a student not only knowingly plagiarized,but also shared his intent to hand in the plagiarized paper, even after beingtold what the consequences could be. Faced with such blatant contempt ofacademic integrity, Michael wasn’t sure what he should do. He decided totalk the situation over with me, the Writing Center administrator, to figureout what his, and the Writing Center’s, role in this unprecedented situationshould be. For me, it brought up interesting and conflicting issues. TheWriting Center, according to our policy, was a safe haven for students.They did not have to be afraid that we divulged information to theirinstructors, graded their work, or in any way judged their performance.

assignments, and/or one-time service. We encourage appoint-ments but gladly accommodate walk-in requests as quickly aspossible. Call 523-8992 to make your appointment. (NorthernArizona University’s Writing Center Flyer)

Since writing centers focus on helping students through thevarious stages of writing tutors have many opportunities to engage indiscussions about plagiarism. Various signs alert tutors to students use ofother authors’ words: the incorporation of passages that tutors rememberfrom teaching the same text in their classes, stylistic changes, or astudent’s inability to explain in her own words what she meant to say ina paragraph. However, instead of penalizing the student, tutors point outthe inconsistencies in voice, provide guidelines for correct citations, andhelp students avoid the consequences of plagiarism.1 The tutor, in thiscase, takes a confidential, non-threatening, positive, and encouragingapproach to a student’s text, reinforcing the notion that the writing centeris a “safe space.” The role of the tutor becomes more complicated,however, when the student refuses to listen to the comments and openlyadmits that she will not give credit to her source although she knows thatappropriating somebody else’s words as her own is considered dishonestbehavior.

In this latter case, does the meeting remain confidential, or doesthe tutor inform somebody (other tutors, the instructor, the writing centeradministrator) about this breach of academic integrity, knowing that theinstructor would probably not suspect any wrongdoing? This is certainlynot an easy and clear-cut decision. It is also not a decision that is usuallybased on precedent but, instead, the tutor has to take into consideration thecontext in which the interactions took place, and the consequences thatwill arise from disclosing the information or keeping it within the confinesof the writing center. In the following pages, I will describe how theWriting Center staff at Northern Arizona University approached a clearcase of plagiarism and breach of academic integrity.

1 Writing centers have to contend with an additional complication. The help thattutors provide, their collaboration with the student who comes in for advice, can andsometimes is interpreted as plagiarism. Various scholars have done excellent studies onthis dilemma. See, for example, Irene Lurkis Clark’s work on “Collaboration and Ethicsin Writing Center Pedagogy” and “Maintaining Chaos in the Writing Center,” RichardBehm’s “Ethical Issues in Peer Tutoring: A Defense of Collaborative Learning,” andJennifer Herek and Mark Niquette’s “Ethics in the Writing Lab: Tutoring under the HonorCode.”

2 All names—except the author’s—have been changed to pseudonyms.


description as to where Professor Mortimer can find the plagiarizedpassage—shows that Michael is not only versed in providing one-on-onetutoring but that he is also an expert in computer-mediated communicationtools.

Michael also makes sure that Professor Mortimer understandswhy he is writing this message. He acknowledges that he talked to hissupervisor about Jeff before sending the e-mail, thus clarifying that hedoesn’t work as an individual but under the supervision of the WritingCenter Director. His specific focus on NAU’s policy on academic dishon-esty also shows that Michael is aware of university policies; at the sametime, he expresses his hope that Jeff changed his mind about using the websource without acknowledging it. However, he asserts that if Jeff did notcite the source, “he has plagiarized”—implying that action needs to betaken and that it is now in the hands of Professor Mortimer to confront Jeff.

Professor Mortimer responded to Michael’s message the follow-ing day, expressing his appreciation for being informed about Michael’sencounter with Jeff (Appendix B). Mortimer’s response provides someimportant information on the assignment and the course in general. As hepoints out, he did not encourage using outside sources. Instead, he wantedstudents to focus on material presented in class. Jeff’s use of an outsidesource, his intent to include additional information, is not necessarily alaudable effort; instead, it becomes an action that defies ProfessorMortimer’s intent of making students grapple with issues already dis-cussed. Although Jeff could not claim ignorance about citation require-ments— Professor Mortimer explicitly states that any outside sourcewould have to be cited—his reluctance to do so is not only a matter ofcontempt for academic integrity but also a dishonest response to theassignment’s intentions.

What is also interesting in this message is the course topic.Professor Mortimer expresses his disappointment with Jeff’s attitude,since much of the semester in this course was spent discussing ethics.Jeff’s incomprehension of his own dishonesty becomes an issue not onlyof his attitude toward giving credit to a source but also of his generalunderstanding of Professor Mortimer’s course material.

This message not only focuses on Jeff, however. It also showsProfessor Mortimer’s attempt to counteract any negative impressionsMichael might have had and ensures his place as a web-savvy instructor.Furthermore, he takes control of the situation by promising to compareJeff’s paper with the information provided on the web site and to talk toJeff about it. Although he provides Michael with an opportunity to opt outof having his name associated with Professor Mortimer’s confrontation,he also makes it clear that the information provided by Michael will be thebasis of his interactions with Jeff.

Taking action in Jeff’s case would mean that we no longer could prideourselves on absolute confidentiality. Furthermore, it would be mucheasier not to get involved and to ignore the issue. It really wasn’t our roleto turn on our flashing red lights and act as integrity police.

However, students that we see inevitably continue to be part ofour academic lives. In the Writing Center, we might worry, for example,whether a student who has been in five times will get a good grade on herpaper. We are delighted when she comes back and tells us that herinstructor praised her for all the work she did. Jeff, certainly, did not ceaseto exist after he left the Writing Center. On the contrary, his comments andhis intentions to hand in a plagiarized paper became the focal point ofMichael’s and my discussions. Would it be ethical to remain silent and actunder the assumption that we “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil”? Or,since we heard and saw potential dishonest behavior, would it be ethicalto abandon Writing Center policies and speak to the instructor about whatwe saw and heard? In a sense, we considered ourselves to be in a no-winsituation. We would either fall short of our self-imposed policies and thetrust that students put into their interactions with Writing Center staff, orwe could be blamed for encouraging and perpetuating unacceptablebehavior. Furthermore, remaining silent about Jeff’s open contempt foracademic integrity could prompt him to tell other students about theCenter’s “policy” of non-intervention, endangering our own integrity asan academic organization which reports to the department chair, the dean,the provost, and the president of the university.

Step 3: Taking Collective Action

We did decide, finally, to inform the instructor—ProfessorMortimer from the Philosophy Department—of Jeff’s interactions withMichael. Since Michael had worked with Jeff, and since he had a first-hand account of the interactions, I suggested that he send an e-mail toProfessor Mortimer. The e-mail, we agreed, should be as specific aspossible, while leaving any kind of action to the discretion of theprofessor. The ensuing online conversation took place mainly betweenMichael and Professor Mortimer. I received forwarded copies of theexchanges, but did not take an active role in them.

In his first e-mail, Michael tries to stay away from judging Jeff’sactions (See Appendix A for full text). Instead, he takes on an informativerole. By telling Professor Mortimer of his interactions with Jeff—includ-ing specific details—he establishes his professional role as Jeff’s tutor. Hethen moves on to discuss the conversation about the online site Jeff usedas his source for the introduction. The detailed information—providingthe URL for the site from which Jeff took the information and a detailed


terms of Professor Mortimer’s inability to encourage his students tocomprehend and use the concepts studied in the course.

Professor Mortimer’s struggle with Jeff’s inability to understanddishonest behavior and his attempt to find the best way to deal with thesituation show that he is not only concerned about “upholding academicintegrity” but with providing a reasonable and useful solution for Jeff,personally, as a student learning about ethics. Looking closely at Profes-sor Mortimer’s suggested “punishment,” however, uncovers a number ofunderlying assumptions. For one, Professor Mortimer asserts that hisstudents should be able to apply their theoretical knowledge learned in thecourse to their own actions—a process that often takes years to complete.Secondly, writing—composing a 15-page essay—becomes a vehicle fordisciplining and penalizing students. And furthermore, Professor Mortimer,although he initially provided Jeff with three options, strongly believesonly one—his—is viable. The choice Jeff was allowed in the tutorial (toinclude or not include plagiarized passages) is removed from his control.

Step 4: Taking Individual Action

Michael, after reading the various e-mail messages, and aftertalking to his colleagues, responds to Professor Mortimer’s request forinput (Appendix E). Initially, Michael is informative and non-judgmental,making sure that Professor Mortimer understands that “yours is thedecision that holds the most weight in this situation.” He also makesexplicit the Writing Center’s position in “normal” circumstances; inaddition, he points out that because of the nature of the situation, “ourreaction called for some improvisation.” His use of the plural (“we,”“our”) shows that he is not only providing his own opinions but that he istalking as a “collective voice,” which has the support of the WritingCenter.

Michael shows his continued interest and engagement in the casewhen he actively looks for information and includes the Student Handbook’squote on academic dishonesty to show possible ways of addressing Jeff’sactions. Michael’s continued interest and his obvious engagement movefar beyond the call of duty. Apparently, Professor Mortimer’s request forcomments prompts Michael to find as much information as he can,establishing some obvious ties—concern with student integrity, under-standing of university rules, making Jeff accountable for his actions—between Professor Mortimer and himself. At the same time, he removeshimself from his position as a non-judgmental tutor who has the bestinterest of his student in mind. This becomes especially clear in the secondpart of the message where Michael moves from providing information togiving his own opinion on the situation.

Mortimer’s follow-up message, sent the same day, shows he istaking Jeff’s breach of academic honesty seriously (Appendix C). In hisopinion, Jeff’s actions become less pardonable because he knows—fromMichael’s e-mail message—that Jeff believed Professor Mortimer wouldnever notice or trace the plagiarized passage. Jeff’s action, in this instance,is not only considered dishonest in terms of university policies, butProfessor Mortimer’s message shows that he considers it a personal andprofessional affront.

It is interesting to notice Professor Mortimer’s continued willing-ness to take into consideration any comments Michael might have. Therapid pace of his e-mail messages, however, leaves little room forMichael’s responses, and Mortimer moves ahead without receiving anyinput from Michael. Thus, before Michael responds to Professor Mortimer,he receives another message, this one written one day after the other twomessages, and after Mortimer had a chance to talk to Jeff (Appendix D).

In this very detailed message, it becomes clear that Mortimer istaking control of the situation. He makes it clear that Jeff’s explanationdoes not satisfy him. Interestingly, Mortimer points out to Michael that heis most concerned with Jeff’s inability to grasp the notion of unethicalbehavior. Mortimer’s comments that Jeff’s offer to now give credit to hissource is too late. Mortimer, like Brenda Bear, believes plagiarism is notthe sole issue. Instead, he focuses on the more global problem of dishon-esty, emphasizing the connections between the course content and Jeff’sabuse of academic integrity as well as Jeff’s apparent inability to compre-hend these connections.

Professor Mortimer’s initial solution includes several options, yethe is even more discouraged with Jeff’s reaction that “ignoring theproblem would be best.” While Jeff’s choice seems disconcerting, Profes-sor Mortimer did include this option in his initial exchange with Jeff—anoption which Jeff, not surprisingly, chooses as the most expedient andreasonable one.

Professor Mortimer’s suggestion to go back to the Writing Centeris met with resistance, showing that Jeff considers Michael’s sharing ofinformation with his professor as a breach of confidence. Jeff’s anger isof course legitimate. He consulted with a Writing Center tutor to receivehelp, not to be “punished” for divulging his intent to ignore the tutor’scomments.

Professor Mortimer ends this post in surprise and dismay that astudent in his moral philosophy class does not understand the concept ofdishonesty. In essence, Professor Mortimer’s reputation as an instructor,his ability to “teach” students about the importance of ethical concepts, ispartly under question here. His dismay can thus be seen not only in termsof Jeff’s inability to understand and apply the course content but also in


Jeff’s violation of honesty and integrity. As he points out, he had beenexpelled from school, not for dishonesty, but for lack of performance. Forhim, expulsion was a “good experience”; he admits though that hisfeelings are not shared by many of his colleagues. He emphasizes that heconsiders Professor Mortimer’s choice as “an appropriate way to handlehis case,” again making sure that he does not want to interfere withProfessor Mortimer’s decision in this event. However, Jeff did not“choose his fate”; instead, Professor Mortimer decided on what measureshad to be taken, thus reinforcing his position within the academic institu-tion while at the same time upholding the institution’s standard onacademic integrity.

Some Concluding and Inconclusive Thoughts

The exchanges between Michael and Professor Mortimer areimportant on several levels and can be used for exploring specific writingcenter policies on confidentiality and academic integrity. First, they showthe tentative role of the writing center and the conflicting positions thatwriting center staff can occupy. The decision to talk with Jeff’s instructorwas by no means an easy one, and it is still difficult to say whether it wasthe right approach to take. Would a similar case occur, we would againhave to question the various roles we occupy, the responsibilities we haveto our students, to instructors, and to the administration. In some ways, wepreserved the ethics of the Writing Center. We were able to prevent astudent from successfully engaging in academic dishonesty. But we alsocircumvented Writing Center ethics in the sense that we divulged infor-mation that, as Jeff’s reaction to a suggested return to the Writing Centershows, was considered confidential by Jeff. It would be difficult, in thisrespect, to claim that we “did the right thing.” Instead, we did what wethought would probably be best for the student in the long run and whatwould be “right” from our perspective as employees of an academicinstitution who consider themselves responsible for student behavior.

The exchanges also provided important insights into the connec-tions between course content, instructor perceptions, and student viola-tions of ethical issues. A different instructor teaching a course unrelatedto ethics might have approached the issue quite differently. Also, aninstructor less concerned with the integrity of student behavior, and lessconcerned about the “character” of the student, might have consideredmore or less stringent measures. Professor Mortimer, as we can see fromhis e-mail messages, gave much thought to Jeff’s behavior. He drewconnections between plagiarism and possible future dishonest actions,considering Jeff’s actions in context instead of in isolation. He didn’t just

Most apparently, we can see the move from the collective “we”to the singular “I,” showing that Michael is focusing on his own opinions.His dismay and increasing anger at Jeff’s actions becomes more and moreapparent as the message continues. He first points out that “this is not aminor violation.” He also argues that Jeff couldn’t have understood any ofthe course content and should fail just because of that. Jeff’s “lack ofremorse” and his lack of understanding are further indications to Michaelthat Jeff should at least get a failing grade for the course. If it were hisstudent, he says, “I would do everything in my power to have himdismissed.” Michael not only speaks of his perspective on plagiarism, healso seems to be offended that Jeff ignored his advice. Unlike Jeff’sprofessor, whose final decision will have a major impact on Jeff’s gradeand possibly on his career, Michael has no other recourse than to let hisopinion be heard and to suggest possible actions he would take. In the end,however, Michael knows that it will be the instructor’s decision and nothis own.

In his last paragraph of this message, Michael admits that he hasthought and talked about these issues with his own students. Furthermore,his comment, “I will discuss this matter further with . . . the Director of theWriting Center,” shows that he has not yet discussed his position with hissupervisor but intends to bring it up in the near future.

Professor Mortimer continues the conversation, and, after doingsome research himself, responds to Michael’s suggestions (Appendix F).In this message, Professor Mortimer lets Michael know what he and hisdepartment chair have decided to do. He points out that he does notconsider expulsion—suggested by Michael in his previous message—asthe best procedure. Once again, it is clear that Michael’s message,although acknowledged and appreciated, does not have the impact forwhich Michael might have wished. Professor Mortimer does acknowl-edge though that, although he has made a decision on this case, he is stillworried about Jeff’s “apparent incomprehension”—and implicitly hisown inability to teach Jeff about ethical behavior. For Professor Mortimer,it is not only a question of academic dishonesty, but a question of“dispositions of character.” The measures he has taken—public confron-tation and time to think about it—are not only intended to “punish” Jeff,but are intended to help him think about his actions and give him time toreflect on his “character.” In this instance, Professor Mortimer putscomplete responsibility on Jeff.

While Professor Mortimer made his decision to find an appropri-ate venue for penalizing Jeff’s breach of academic integrity, the lastmessage in the exchange also shows that Michael had time to reflect on thesuggestions he wrote three days prior to the final message. This finalmessage in the exchange sheds light on Michael’s adamant reaction to


APPENDIX A

Dr. Mortimer:

Last Wednesday (April 30), Jeff, a student in PHI 325, came to the EnglishDepartment’s Writing Workshop in LA-228 for assistance on a paper hewas writing for your class. I worked with him for roughly half an hour,during which time we discussed several grammatical issues and theoverall organization of his paper. At the end of the session, he asked mewhat I thought of his introduction. After I made some comments about it,he informed me that he had taken the idea for his introduction from a worldwide web page. He showed me a printout of the page long enough for meto read the words “Justice as Fairness” in large letters across the top. Hethen wanted to confirm his impression that, because he had taken theinformation from the Internet, he did not need to list it as a work cited. Iinformed him that he did, indeed, need to include the web page in hisbibliography. His response was that his instructor would never find it, sohe wasn’t going to list it. At this point, I reiterated the fact that he needsto document any information he got from anywhere other than his ownhead. Once again, however, Jeff responded that he didn’t think hisinstructor ever “surfed” the net, and so there was no chance he could getcaught. He then left.

I immediately went to a computer to find the web page he showed me, andlocated it: the URL, if you’re interested, is <http://truth.wofford.edu/~kaycd/justice.htm>. The page explicitly shows a copyright held byCharles D. Kay at the bottom, and deals primarily with some of theconcepts developed by John Rawls.

The information used by Jeff in his paper is in the fourth paragraph on thisweb page, and involves the likening of the distribution of basic libertiesto the cutting of a cake. This metaphor, I believe, is Kay’s.

I approached . . . the director of the Writing Workshop with Jeff’sexpressed intent to plagiarize this material. We agreed that, in light ofNAU’s policy regarding academic dishonesty, we had an obligation toinform you of this matter.

I sincerely hope that Jeff listened to me when I told him he had to cite thissource. However, if he did not, he has plagiarized.

want to punish Jeff for his behavior but wanted him to learn and to profitfrom the measures taken. It remains unclear, though, whether ProfessorMortimer considered Jeff’s actions in light of his teaching practices andwhether he used this experience to rethink the objectives and goals for thecourse—or whether he should.

Furthermore, the analysis shows that Michael’s engagement, andhis initial consultation with me, was situated in his own experiences as astudent who was expelled from college. Another tutor might never havementioned the incident to his colleagues or to me. This shows, then, thathis actions, as well as the actions of Jeff and Professor Mortimer, have tobe contextualized and evaluated by looking at their own experiences. Jeff,for example, acted partly based on his belief that his instructor wouldnever find the web page he used; Professor Mortimer’s actions are to someextent based on his training as a philosophy professor interested in ethicalissues; and Michael used his own experiences with academic institutionsto take a pro-active role in writing Professor Mortimer.

Considering the complexity of the issue and the contradictionsinvolved in wanting to create “safe places” for students and also wantingto be responsible for promoting academic honesty, writing center staff canwork toward establishing policies that explain the center’s position onplagiarism. It is difficult to determine for anyone else whether to act or toremain detached from situations similar to the one discussed. Instead, weneed to find the way that justifies our actions to our students, theinstructors, the administration, and to ourselves. However, we need to beaware that our position as writing center administrators and writing centerstaff is a precarious one, because, as Michael Pemberton puts it, “it almostguarantees that any policy decision . . . no matter how well-considered orwell-intentioned it may be, will not please everybody” (15).


APPENDIX B

Dear Michael,

Thank you for sharing the information. I did state on the assignment thatI did not recommend turning to outside texts for the paper (I wantedthem to grapple with those we discussed in class) but, if they did chooseto rely on such material, then they would have to provide full citations.Because this is a class on ethics, and we have spent so much timereflecting on the nature of virtue (especially the virtue of honesty), Ifind it especially disheartening that Jeff would express such an attitudeabout the requirements for academic integrity.

As a matter of fact, I do surf the net—especially on philosophicaltopics. I haven’t come across the site on Rawls’ “Theory of Justice,”but I will take a look at it, and I will take a hard look at Jeff’s paper.

My first approach will be simply to confront Jeff with what you havesaid and with his paper. I hope that this does not put you in an awkwardposition. If it does, then please let me know ASAP. I’ll let you knowhow it goes.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to e-mail me or call me.


APPENDIX D

Dear Michael,

I talked to Jeff last night before leaving (he surprised me by stopping bywithout setting up an appointment) about the charge of plagiarism. Iexplained that there were three problems with the paper—the idea used,the two clauses, and the entire sentence—and asked for his comments. Hesaid that he didn’t think that using the idea was a problem because it wassuch a common one and he didn’t rely on it in his argument. I told him thatthe use didn’t matter. He then stated that the only reason he did not givea reference is that he didn’t know how to cite the web page. I told him thatthis was no excuse—especially for the second and third problems. It isnever permissible to use a clause that is lifted from someone else’s work—much less an entire sentence—without quoting and footnoting. He agreedthat there was a problem and kindly offered to add the quotes and thereference to his paper. I explained that the paper was turned in and simplychanging it at this point would not resolve the plagiarism (kind of likestealing, getting caught, and then offering to return the money).

In light of the difficult situation, I offered three options and asked himwhich he thought would be most reasonable: I could simply impose thestandard penalty for plagiarism which is an F for the course, I could turnmy head and ignore the problem, or we could try to find something inbetween these two extremes. Much to my surprise (and dismay) hesuggested that ignoring the problem would be best (with a serious face,mind you). I explained that this was not a real option and was disappointedthat he suggested it was reasonable.

I recommended that confronting the problem is always best and suggestedthe idea that he might talk to you. His response was that going to theWriting Center was a mistake and that he would never make the mistakeagain. Surprised (and dismayed) once again, I said that going to theWriting Center almost helped him to avoid the problem—if only he hadtaken your advice.

APPENDIX C

Dear Michael,

I have compared Jeff’s paper to the page on the net. Jeff does use the imageof cutting the cake as a simple illustration of the problem of fair distribu-tion in his paper. That, in itself, is worrisome, but not a terrible problemfor the following reason. The image is a very common one—both to theliterature on this particular subject and to our common understanding ofthe problem. Nevertheless, Jeff does take two clauses and a full sentencedirectly from the text without either quoting or providing a reference witha footnote.

In the ground rules for the papers (set out in the beginning of the semester),I explicitly state that this constitutes plagiarism. Normally, I would saythat a student who steals a single clause is having trouble putting things inhis or her own terms (and perhaps even forgetting that the author put it inexactly the same manner). However, in Jeff’s case, the fact that youpointed it out and that he said he didn’t think I would notice is pretty goodevidence that he didn’t have such pardonable intentions.

I will be meeting Jeff to discuss the problem tomorrow. I’ll let you knowwhat I’m thinking about doing then. Regardless of my decision, you arefree (and perhaps responsible—depending upon how much you’ve workedwith him on the papers) to bring the matter before him yourself. Let meknow what you think. These are hard cases to deal with and I wouldappreciate your thoughts.


need to cite the online source from which he took the information, and thefact that he expressed his intention to disregard my recommendation, I feelfairly confident in saying that this is not a minor violation. His consciousdecision to commit plagiarism when he had been told that what he wascontemplating was, indeed, just that demonstrates a thorough lack ofawareness of and respect for academic integrity. The fact that thisoccurred as part of an assignment for a class dealing with ethics, in myopinion, increases the severity of his violation exponentially.

This breach of ethics clearly suggests that Jeff failed to engage any of thematerial covered in your course, . . . and on this fact alone, I am prone tosuggest that he deserves to fail the course—academic dishonesty notwith-standing.

Jeff’s apparent lack of remorse is also problematic. His serious recom-mendation that you simply turn your head to the situation, and hisplacement of blame on me for bringing to light his infraction, as opposedto himself for (1) committing the infraction and (2) telling me about it, aretruly discouraging, and indicate that he has no understanding of the natureof what he has done.

One of the things I tell my students every semester is that by committingplagiarism, they are effectively saying that they don’t have anythingimportant to say. The act of stealing someone else’s words is a denial oftheir own voice. This is perhaps more significant in a composition coursedesigned to help students develop a voice, but I think it is still largelyapplicable to any course.

Jeff has denied his own voice. Furthermore, he doesn’t seem to think thereis anything wrong with this. This seems to go against everything thathigher education represents.

Were Jeff my student, I would do everything in my power to have himdismissed from the University. His actions and attitude suggest that he hassimply missed the point on several levels, and I think he would be wellserved by being given some time off to reconsider his own sense of ethicalresponsibility. At the very least, this would give him a more appropriateunderstanding of the severity of his violation.

At the very least, however, I would award him a failing grade.

I hope this diatribe proves to be somewhat helpful. My soapbox is well-worn from my discussions of academic dishonesty with my own students.

APPENDIX E

Professor Mortimer:

First, allow me to apologize for neglecting to respond to your previous e-mails. I have been operating from the premise that Jeff is your student, andyours is the decision that holds the most weight in this situation.

Second, let me express my gratitude for your support of the WritingCenter. To elaborate on a point somewhat hidden in my original e-mail toyou: This kind of intervention is not the Writing Center’s standardoperating procedure. Under normal circumstances, we work very hard tomaintain a level of confidentiality that we feel is dictated by commoncourtesy. However, the nature of this circumstance is far from normal, andso our reaction called for some improvisation.

Now, to your request for my input:

I’ve looked over what the Student Handbook has to say about AcademicDishonesty. On page 58, under the heading of “Academic ViolationsGuidelines,” is written:

“It is the responsibility of the individual faculty member to identifyinstances of academic dishonesty and recommend penalties to the depart-ment chair and/or dean in keeping with the severity of the violation. If itis determined that the violation is minor, the faculty member may decidethe only necessary action is a conference with the student and/or verbalchastisement. Should it be determined that the violation merits a moresevere penalty than verbal chastisement, the faculty member may decidethat one of the following progressive penalties is appropriate:

1. Assign the student extra course work. 2. Require the assignment or examination be repeated. 3. Reduce the grade on the assignment or examination. 4. Award zero grade on the assignment or examination. 5. Require the student to drop the course. 6. Award a failing grade in the course.”

In light of the fact that I told Jeff, in response to his inquiry, that he would


APPENDIX F

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. I have talked to the chair ofthe department, gone through the student handbook sections on academicdishonesty, and checked with the associate provost to see if Jeff has anyprevious violations. Because Jeff does not have a record of previousacademic dishonesty, the chair and I have agreed that it would beappropriate to leave Jeff with a choice: he can either write a longer paperon the subject of virtue of honesty and the university policies of academicintegrity and dishonesty, or he can receive an F for the course. I do notbelieve that the offense itself is sufficient to warrant expulsion from theuniversity (a penalty which can be given only for extremely flagrant orrepeat offenses, I believe).

Nevertheless, I am worried about Jeff’s apparent incomprehension of thenature of the offense. Normally, we say that a person should be punishedonly for their actions and not for their attitudes or for their dispositions ofcharacter. I tend to think there is something of substance in this old dictumof the criminal law. One of the points that I would like to draw is that thecultivation of virtue is a task which we must all accept for ourselves—noone can force someone else to pursue honesty, or courage, or patience. Myhope is that the public confrontation over this offense, plus a sustainedopportunity to think about it for himself, might at least give Jeff the chanceto re-examine his own attitudes and dispositions of character.

I will discuss this matter further with . . . the Director of the Writing Centerto get her input on the matter. Should you wish to discuss this further, orneed my assistance with anything, please let me know.


APPENDIX G

Professor Mortimer:

It sounds to me like you’ve handled it well. After discussing the situationwith some colleagues, I’ve come to the decision that my feelings about itmight be somewhat . . . inflated. I, myself, was dismissed from college asan undergrad (for my lack of concern about my own performance, not fordishonesty), as has one of the other TAs here in the English department.Both of us have a somewhat different understanding of and appreciationfor expulsion than most people I know: Both of us benefited greatly fromour experiences, as they gave us the time we needed to get our acts togetherbefore making another go at it. In other words, I’ve always thought ofexpulsion as a strangely good experience. I suppose it’s not exactlyreasonable for me to expect too many others to share my attitude.

I think allowing Jeff to choose his fate is an appropriate way to handle hiscase. Thanks for keeping me informed.

Works Cited

Bear, Brenda. “Plagiarism.” Personal e-mail (17 March 1998).

Behm, Richard. “Ethical Issues in Peer Tutoring: A Defense of Col-laborative Learning.” The Writing Center Journal 10.1 (1989):3-12.

Clark, Irene Lurkis. “Collaboration and Ethics in Writing CenterPedagogy.” The Writing Center Journal 9.1 (1988): 3-12.

Clark, Irene Lurkis. “Maintaining Chaos in the Writing Center: ACritical Perspective on Writing Center Dogma.” The WritingCenter Journal 11.1 (1990): 81-94.

Fitzgerald, Sallyanne H. “Collaborative Learning and Whole LanguageTheory.” Intersections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center.Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. 11-18.

Harris, Muriel, “A Multiservice Writing Lab in a Multiversity: ThePurdue University Writing Lab.” Writing Centers in Context:Twelve Case Studies. Eds. Joyce A. Kinkead and Jeannette G.Harris. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993.1-27.

Herek, Jennifer and Mark Niquette. “Ethics in the Writing Lab: Tutor-ing under the Honor Code.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 14.5(1990): 12-15.

Millward, Celia. Handbook for Writers. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1983.

Murphy, Christina. “Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalyticsof Tutoring Well.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for WritingTutors. Eds. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. 43-48.

Pemberton, Michael. “Writing Center Ethics.” The Writing Lab News-letter 17 (June 1993): 15-16.

Purves, Alan C. The Web of Text and the Web of God: An Essay on theThird Information Transformation. New York: The GuilfordPress, 1998.

The Writing Center Journal, Volume 19, Number 1, Fall/Winter 1998

The Writing Center Journal72

Toward a Critical Theoryof Technology and Writing

Sharon Thomas, Danielle DeVoss, and Mark Hara

Technological development enables certain practices and canaffect certain social arrangements, but it need not affect certainsocial arrangements in only one way. The trajectory of its devel-opment is not fixed, but ambivalent. It can follow several paths.—Stuart Blythe, “Networked Computers + Writing Centers = ?Thinking About Networked Computers in Writing CenterPractice” (104)

In his article, “Networked Computers + Writing Centers = ?Thinking About Networked Computers in Writing Center Practice,”Stuart Blythe rejects both instrumental and substantive views of technol-ogy and argues, instead, for a critical theory of technology. According toBlythe, those who hold an instrumental theory of technology believe thattechnology is neutral, that it brings about only minimal changes and,therefore, only individuals can be held accountable for its misuses. Thosewho hold substantive views, on the other hand, believe that technologycomes with certain biases derived from cultural and technical codes andthat adopting technology will result in significant changes in humanbehavior. Generally, Blythe leans toward the substantive view because itexplains how the tools, the medium, and the environment all affect humanactions, in this case, writing center tutorials (96-101). Yet, in the end, heargues for the adoption of a critical theory of technology. According toBlythe, substantive theories leave us only two choices We either adopt thetechnology as it is or reject it altogether. A critical theory of technology,on the other hand, opens up the possibility of change because criticaltheory acknowledges the substantive claim that each technology containsbias while offering us something more productive than a take-it-or-leave-

Sibylle Gruber is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric at Northern ArizonaUniversity where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses inliteracy studies, rhetoric and cultures, computers and composition, and thehistory of composition studies. She has published on cybertheories,feminist rhetorics, composition, and cultural studies in various journals,is editor of Weaving a Virtual Web: Practical Approaches to New Informa-tion Technologies, and is currently co-editing, with Laura Gray-Rosendale,Alternative Rhetorics: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition.

wcj19.1 gruber

Documents