Select Page

This exam should not take than two hours. Please read the essay, “Plagiarism is not a big moral deal” by Stanley Fish. Download “Plagiarism is not a big moral deal” by Stanley Fish.Organize your paper either as an argument (agreeing or disagreeing with Fish) or a comparison/contrast. You can compare Fish’s article to another article about plagiarism from a UC Library database, but that is all. Go into as much detail as possible, and remember to quote and cite both sources correctly using the MLA Style. Be sure to include a Works Cited page. Here is a sample of three kinds of outlines Download Here is a sample of three kinds of outlinesyou can consider for your midterm; please use one of them.
This assignment will demonstrate to me that you know how to turn in a paper following the MLA Style. Be sure it is spell-checked, cited correctly, double-spaced, and that you post it as a Word document or PDF.
Remember to edit this assignment for the following: organization, correctness and typos, correct use of quotations and citation using the MLA Style, MLA format for your heading and page numbers, and structure.
A good way to organize this paper would be to begin with your thesis (whether or not Dr. Fish’s argument is valid), then include two or three supporting paragraphs based on your argument in support of (or rejecting) it.
Thesis: make a clear statement about whether or not you agree with Fish. Explain the two or three points of argument you will use in your supporting paragraphs.
Supporting Paragraph 1
Supportive detail/quotation
Supportive detail/quotation
Supporting Paragraph 2
Supportive detail/quotation
Supportive detail/quotation
Supporting Paragraph 3 (optional)
Supportive detail/quotation
Supportive detail/quotation
Conclusion: restate your thesis and summarize your argument.
6. Works Cited page
Course Learning Outcomes Achieved
demonstrate skill in college-level writing, reading, and critical thinking
demonstrate in writing the standards of grammar and style
demonstrate an understanding of writing as a process
Midterm Rubric
Midterm Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of meaningful quotations from texts discussed
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCitation of all quotations
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClear thesis
25 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganized, clear body paragraph(s) that support the thesis
25 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion that restates the thesis and summarizes the argument
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWorks Cited page
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmitted as a Word or PDF document.
10 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
10 pts
Total Points: 100
Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral DealBy Stanley Fish August 9, 2010 9:00 pm
Stanley Fish on education, law and society.
During my tenure as the dean of a college, I determined that an underperforming program
should be closed. My wife asked me if I had ever set foot on the premises, and when I answered
“no,” she said that I really should do that before wielding the axe.
And so I did, in the company of my senior associate dean. We toured the offices and spoke to
students and staff. In the course of a conversation, one of the program’s co-directors pressed on
me his latest book. I opened it to the concluding chapter, read the first two pages, and remarked
to my associate dean, “This is really good.”
But on the way back to the administration building, I suddenly flashed on the pages I
admired and began to suspect that the reason I liked them so much was that I had written them.
And sure enough, when I got back to my office and pulled one of my books off the shelf, there the
pages were, practically word for word. I telephoned the co-director, and told him that I had been
looking at his book, and wanted to talk about it. He replied eagerly that he would come right
over, but when he came in I pointed him to the two books — his and mine — set out next to each
other with the relevant passages outlined by a marker. He turned white and said that he and his co-author had divided the responsibilities for the book’s
chapters and that he had not written (perhaps “written” should be in quotes) this one. I contacted
the co-author and he wrote back to me something about graduate student researchers who had
given him material that was not properly identified. I made a few half-hearted efforts to contact
the book’s publisher, but I didn’t persist and I pretty much forgot about it, although the memory
returns whenever I read yet another piece (like one that appeared recently in The Times) about
3/18/2021 Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal – The New York Times 2/4
the ubiquity of plagiarism, the failure of students to understand what it is, the suspicion that they
know what it is but don’t care, and the outdatedness of notions like originality and single
authorship on which the intelligibility of plagiarism as a concept depends.
Whenever it comes up plagiarism is a hot button topic and essays about it tend to be
philosophically and morally inflated. But there are really only two points to make. (1) Plagiarism
is a learned sin. (2) Plagiarism is not a philosophical issue.
Of course every sin is learned. Very young children do not distinguish between themselves
and the world; they assume that everything belongs to them; only in time and through the
conditioning of experience do they learn the distinction between mine and thine and so come to
acquire the concept of stealing. The concept of plagiarism, however, is learned in more
specialized contexts of practice entered into only by a few; it’s hard to get from the notion that
you shouldn’t appropriate your neighbor’s car to the notion that you should not repeat his words
without citing him.
The rule that you not use words that were first uttered or written by another without due
attribution is less like the rule against stealing, which is at least culturally universal, than it is like
the rules of golf. I choose golf because its rules are so much more severe and therefore so much
odder than the rules of other sports. In baseball you can (and should) steal bases and hide the
ball. In football you can (and should) fake a pass or throw your opponent to the ground. In
basketball you will be praised for obstructing an opposing player’s view of the court by waving
your hands in front of his face. In hockey … well let’s not go there. But in golf, if you so much as
move the ball accidentally while breathing on it far away from anyone who might have seen what
you did, you must immediately report yourself and incur the penalty. (Think of what would
happen to the base-runner called safe at home-plate who said to the umpire, “Excuse me, sir, but
although you missed it, I failed to touch third base.”)
Golf’s rules have been called arcane and it is not unusual to see play stopped while a P.G.A.
official arrives with rule book in hand and pronounces in the manner of an I.R.S. official. Both
fans and players are aware of how peculiar and “in-house” the rules are; knowledge of them is
what links the members of a small community, and those outside the community (most people in
the world) can be excused if they just don’t see what the fuss is about.
Plagiarism is like that; it’s an insider’s obsession. If you’re a professional journalist, or an
academic historian, or a philosopher, or a social scientist or a scientist, the game you play for a
living is underwritten by the assumed value of originality and failure properly to credit the work
of others is a big and obvious no-no. But if you’re a musician or a novelist, the boundary lines are
less clear (although there certainly are some) and if you’re a politician it may not occur to you, as
3/18/2021 Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal – The New York Times 3/4
it did not at one time to Joe Biden, that you’re doing anything wrong when you appropriate the
speech of a revered statesman.
And if you’re a student, plagiarism will seem to be an annoying guild imposition without a
persuasive rationale (who cares?); for students, learning the rules of plagiarism is worse than
learning the irregular conjugations of a foreign language. It takes years, and while a knowledge of
irregular verbs might conceivably come in handy if you travel, knowledge of what is and is not
plagiarism in this or that professional practice is not something that will be of very much use to
you unless you end up becoming a member of the profession yourself. It follows that students
who never quite get the concept right are by and large not committing a crime; they are just
failing to become acclimated to the conventions of the little insular world they have, often
through no choice of their own, wandered into. It’s no big moral deal; which doesn’t mean, I
hasten to add, that plagiarism shouldn’t be punished — if you’re in our house, you’ve got to play
by our rules — just that what you’re punishing is a breach of disciplinary decorum, not a breach
of the moral universe.
Now if plagiarism is an idea that makes sense only in the precincts of certain specialized
practices and is not a normative philosophical notion, inquiries into its philosophical
underpinnings are of no practical interest or import. In recent years there have been a number of
assaults on the notion of originality, issuing from fields as diverse as literary theory, history,
cultural studies, philosophy, anthropology, Internet studies. Single authorship, we have been
told, is a recent invention of a bourgeois culture obsessed with individualism, individual rights
and the myth of progress. All texts are palimpsests of earlier texts; there’s been nothing new
under the sun since Plato and Aristotle and they weren’t new either; everything belongs to
everybody. In earlier periods works of art were produced in workshops by teams; the master
artisan may have signed them, but they were communal products. In some cultures, even
contemporary ones, the imitation of standard models is valued more than work that sets out to
be path-breaking. (This was one of the positions in the famous quarrel between the ancients and
the moderns in England and France in the 17th and 18th centuries.)
Arguments like these (which I am reporting, not endorsing) have been so successful in
academic circles that the very word “originality” often appears in quotation marks, and it has
seemed to many that there is a direct path from this line of reasoning to the conclusion that
plagiarism is an incoherent, even impossible, concept and that a writer or artist accused of plagiarism is being faulted for doing something that cannot be avoided. R.M. Howard makes the
point succinctly “If there is no originality and no literary property, there is no basis for the notion
of plagiarism” (“College English,” 1995).
3/18/2021 Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal – The New York Times 4/4
That might be true or at least plausible if, in order to have a basis, plagiarism would have to
stand on some philosophical ground. But the ground plagiarism stands on is more mundane and
firm; it is the ground of disciplinary practices and of the histories that have conferred on those
practices a strong, even undoubted (though revisable) sense of what kind of work can be
appropriately done and what kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. If it is wrong to plagiarize in
some context of practice, it is not because the idea of originality has been affirmed by deep
philosophical reasoning, but because the ensemble of activities that take place in the practice
would be unintelligible if the possibility of being original were not presupposed.
And if there should emerge a powerful philosophical argument saying there’s no such thing
as originality, its emergence needn’t alter or even bother for a second a practice that can only get
started if originality is assumed as a baseline. It may be (to offer another example), as I have
argued elsewhere, that there’s no such thing as free speech, but if you want to have a free speech
regime because you believe that it is essential to the maintenance of democracy, just forget what
Stanley Fish said — after all it’s just a theoretical argument — and get down to it as lawyers and
judges in fact do all the time without the benefit or hindrance of any metaphysical rap. Everyday
disciplinary practices do not rest on a foundation of philosophy or theory; they rest on a
foundation of themselves; no theory or philosophy can either prop them up or topple them. As
long as the practice is ongoing and flourishing its conventions will command respect and
allegiance and flouting them will have negative consequences.
This brings me back to the (true) story I began with. Whether there is something called
originality or not, the two scholars who began their concluding chapter by reproducing two of my
pages are professionally culpable. They took something from me without asking and without
acknowledgment, and they profited — if only in the currency of academic reputation — from
work that I had done and signed. That’s the bottom line and no fancy philosophical argument can
erase it.
Chewning 1
Susannah Chewning
Dr. Meeks
ENG 101-037
22 October 2020
I. Thesis: introduce your topic. If it’s an essay, identify the author and the title. Stanley Fish,
“Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal.” Explain how you either agree or disagree with Fish, and
explain your points of argument for agreement (a and b). Or, if you compare it to another
source, explain what the other source is and identify the points of comparison.
Agree/Disagree outline
II. Point of argument A
a. Fish quotation
b. Fish/another source quotation
III. Point of argument B
a. Fish quotation
b. Fish/another source quotation
IV. Conclusion: restate thesis; summarize
each body paragraph
V. Works Cited
Alternating Comparison outline
II. Point of comparison A
a. Fish
b. Other Source
III. Point of Comparison B
a. Fish
b. Other Source
IV. Conclusion: restate thesis; summarize
each body paragraph
V. Works Cited
Block Comparison outline
II. Fish
a. Point of comparison a
b. Point of comparison b
III. Other Source
a. Point of comparison a
b. Point of comparison b
IV. Conclusion: restate thesis; summarize each body
V. Works Cite