A Philosophical Response To Plagiarism Teaching Philosophy 2016 DOI 10.5840 Teachphil201612158

Teaching Philosophy Online First: December 6, 2016
DOI: 10.5840/teachphil201612158
© Teaching Philosophy. All rights reserved. 0145-5788
A Philosophical Response to Plagiarism
JOEL HUBICK
KU Leuven
Abstract: I analyze the potential a link between the problem of plagiarism
and academic responsibility. I consider whether or not the way teachers and
students view each other, education, and the writing process is irresponsible
wherein producing papers becomes more valuable than the genuine learning
that paper writing is originally intended to indicate and facilitate. This irre-
sponsibility applies to both students and teachers who allow writing papers to
be industrialized into meaningless tasks done in order to obtain a grade / pass
a course. In this irresponsible situation, plagiarism can appear an efficient,
albeit dishonest, gamble to succeed. Using the thought of Edmund Husserl,
Martin Heidegger, and Jan Patočka to philosophically assess and respond
to this academic situation, I argue for a way to restore the teacher-student
relationship to a proper state of care and responsibility.
Introduction
Recently in academia there has been a growing concern for increased
accounts of plagiarism. It is debatable whether the increase is due
to technology making it easier for students to plagiarize (electronic
sources, the internet, etc.), is the result of an increase in academic
efforts to detect and report on plagiarism, or if it is a symptom of a
larger crisis in academia. In response to this situation, many universi-
ties now take extra measures to inform students as to what counts as
plagiarism, what happens when a student is caught plagiarizing, and
debate just how to properly conceptualize it. According to KU Leu-
ven’s official website on the topic, “plagiarism has long been a prob-
lem, but recent societal and technological developments have put the
phenomenon in a new context. . . . At the same time, the possibilities
for gathering information are also constantly on the rise (electronic
sources, the Internet, etc.)” (KU Leuven 2015). Although not usually
considered a philosophical problem, it is interesting to consider just
what plagiarism is and wonder why incidents of it may or may not be

JOEL HUBICK
increasing in frequency. Setting aside whether this increase is due to
recent developments in plagiarism detection or genuinely tracks those
who choose to plagiarize, I wonder if there is another side to plagiarism
which is brought on by the way teachers and students view each other,
education, and the writing process. I would like to explore whether or
not the issue of plagiarism has something to do with irresponsibility.
This irresponsibility will include students who cheat but also
teachers who allow education to be industrialized. Specifically, this
industrialization occurs when both teachers and students view writ-
ing papers merely as a task done in order to obtain a grade or pass a
course. Perhaps when writing a paper is reduced to a meaningless task,
then plagiarism becomes an efficient, albeit dishonest, path through
the education system? If so, then the recent increase in plagiarism may
not be solely due to technology making it easier but is perhaps also
caused by an underlying irresponsibility of both students and teach-
ers who allow education to be reduced to meaningless tasks. In this
sense the common approach of making sure students understand what
plagiarism is and why it is wrong may be treating the symptom instead
of the underlying problem. In order to address plagiarism in a more
comprehensive way I propose we consider whether students, teachers,
and education in general view the writing process in an irresponsible
way. If irresponsibility is indeed the root problem then Edmund Hus-
serl, Martin Heidegger, and Jan Patočka, who have a lot to say about
philosophical responsibility and crisis, will provide a more philosophi-
cal response to plagiarism.
I intend to assess the phenomenon of plagiarism in light of ir-
responsibility and argue that it is best understood as a kind of false
participation in the educational process. This definition of false par-
ticipation accounts for and includes the many different recent attempts
of scholarship to define the essence of plagiarism. Furthermore, if I
am correct in this assessment, then the best solution to this irrespon-
sible situation extends beyond merely defining what plagiarism is and
threatening students with serious penalties if they are caught plagiariz-
ing. Rather, what is required is for teachers and students to reconsider
the original intent of education in such a way as to make the gamble
of plagiarism worthless and undesirable. This will be accomplished
when both students and teachers understand how to participate in the
educational process in a genuine and responsible way.
In order to accomplish this, in the first section, I will consider to
what extent philosophy can provide a proper response to the issue of
plagiarism by engaging with a recent New York Times opinion article by
Stanley Fish (2010). In the second section, I will use the philosophy of
Husserl, Heidegger, and Patočka to situate the problem of industrializa-
tion in education and argue that it is within this context that plagiarism

A PHILOSOPHICAL RESPONSE TO PLAGIARISM
appears to become a reasonable gamble for students seeking to be ef-
ficient. In the third section, I will summarize some recent scholarship
on the problem of defining just what plagiarism means and argue that
it is best understood as false participation in the educational process. I
will do this by primarily focusing upon Brook J. Sadler’s two articles
“The Wrongs of Plagiarism: Ten Quick Arguments” (Sadler 2007)
and “How Important Is Student Participation in Teaching Philosophy”
(Sadler 2004). In the fourth section, I will develop Sadler’s research
into an argument for responsible participation. In the fifth section, I will
conclude the essay with a practical list of specific responsibilities for
both teachers and students that could facilitate responsible education.
How Useful is Philosophy in Response to Plagiarism?
On August 9, 2010, Stanley Fish, the public intellectual and distin-
guished professor of law at the Cardozo Law School, published a piece
in the New York Times titled “Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal.”
Therein he discussed “the failure of students to understand what [pla-
giarism] is, the suspicion that they know what it is but don’t care,1
and the outdatedness of notions like originality and single authorship
on which the intelligibility of plagiarism as a concept depends” (Fish
2010: ¶4)2
. Fish’s twofold claim is that: (1) plagiarism is a learned sin,
and (2) plagiarism is not a philosophical issue.
By a learned sin, Fish means plagiarism can only take place in a
context governed by insider rules. The act of plagiarism is the trans-
gression of these insider rules which effectively only apply to those
within a particular context or discipline. Fish states that
if you’re a professional journalist, an academic historian, a philosopher, or a
social 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
student, plagiarism will seem to be an annoying guild imposition without a
persuasive rationale. (Fish 2010: ¶9)
In this sense, Fish suggests that the rules of plagiarism are only valuable
and important within the particular discipline they are implemented in.
Different disciplines will have their own rules and will respond in their
own way to transgression. Furthermore, Fish suggests that “it follows
that students who never quite get the concept [of plagiarism] 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” (Fish 2010: ¶10).
In other words, there is no moral transgression in plagiarism, only the
transgression of the insider rules of one’s own discipline. This certainly

JOEL HUBICK
does not make plagiarism acceptable or less problematic but it does
lower its negative value from an immoral act to one of disobedience.
If Fish is correct that plagiarism is only governed by individual
contexts, then any condemnation of plagiarism from moral and philo-
sophical grounds becomes problematic. According to Fish, plagiarism
is simply not a philosophical or moral problem. He states that “if
plagiarism is an idea that makes sense only in the precincts of certain
specialized practices and is not a normative philosophical notion, in-
quiries into its philosophical underpinnings are of no practical interest
or import” (Fish 2010: ¶11). Besides the fact that here Fish connects
philosophy with ‘normativity,’ he also suggests that recent studies on
plagiarism, originality, and the claim to singular authorship yield some
interesting ideas:
Single authorship, we have been told, is a recent invention of a bourgeois cul-
ture 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 andAristotle and they weren’t new either; everything belongs
to everybody . . . [and in fact] in some cultures, even contemporary ones,
the imitation of standard models is valued more than work that sets out to be
path-breaking. (Fish 2010: ¶11)
Fish clearly states that he is only reporting on these arguments not
endorsing them but suggests that these recent studies ought to cause
us to see notions of originality and singular authorship as suspect or
problematic. Fish does not cite any specific studies nor does he argue
for their factual basis but instead moves into a discussion about how
their implication ought to change the way we view and understand
plagiarism. Fish suggests that
the ground [that] plagiarism stands on is more mundane and firm; it is the
ground of disciplinary practices and of the histories that conferred on those
practices a strong, even undoubted (although revisable) sense of what kind of
work can be appropriately done and what kind of behavior cannot be toler-
ated. 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.
(Fish 2010: ¶13)
Thus it seems that for Fish, the ideas, customs, and rules against pla-
giarism are pragmatic at best.
To summarize Fish’s argument, the rules of plagiarism need to be
clearly conveyed to students and enforced within particular disciplines
but should only be understood as a contextual ‘sin’ without a genuine
philosophical basis. Without a philosophical basis, academics should
see that the rules of plagiarism merely amount to a special kind of
pragmatism that varies from discipline to discipline. This in no way

lessens the severity of plagiarism as a violation of insider rules but
it does suggest that it is not a philosophical problem and furthermore
that no philosophical response is helpful in the face of plagiarism.
A Peculiar Philosophical Response
There were many responses to Fish’s article and in many ways the
debate is still ongoing, but instead of trying to refute Fish’s claim that
plagiarism is not a moral issue point for point I would like to consider
what he raises, as a question worth thinking about. Let us assume that
Fish is correct in his claims and consider if this means that academia
is in crisis. If academia is in crisis, it is a peculiar kind of crisis and
not the more familiar kind that signifies that something is broken. We
can see that since academia is certainly producing a lot of excellent
research in many areas, if academia is indeed in crisis then it is so
because it functions too well; a crisis indicated by a lack of proble-
maticity. Can we have a crisis in something due to it functioning too
well? If so, how can we further understand this crisis? In order to help
us clarify this strange way of defining crisis, we can turn to Husserl.
In his last and unfinished work, The Crisis of European Sciences
(Husserl 1970), Husserl suggests that crisis permeates the whole idea
of science itself. Interestingly, Husserl considers this crisis to be one
characterized by a lack of problematicity. Crisis occurs when a person
working on a project is capable of successfully adding to it without
fully or partially understanding what it is in fact they are participating
in. Husserl states that the crisis of science
concerns not [just] the scientific character of the sciences but rather what
[scientists], or what science in general, had meant and could mean for hu-
man existence. The exclusiveness with which the total world-view of modern
man, in the second half of the nineteenth century, let itself be determined
by the positive sciences and be blinded by the ‘prosperity’ they produced,
meant an indifferent turning-away from the questions which are decisive for
a genuine humanity. Merely fact-minded sciences make merely fact-minded
people. . . . In our vital need—so we are told—this science has nothing to
say to us. It excludes in principle precisely the questions which man . . . finds
the most burning: questions of the meaning or meaninglessness of . . . human
existence. (Husserl 1970: 5–6)
For Husserl, science is in crisis when, as a human project, it nonethe-
less has nothing to say about human existence. Furthermore, crisis is
exacerbated when the project of science can be successfully participated
in by those who do not fully or partially understand its meaning or
what they are doing when they participate in it. A crisis occurs when a
project is reduced to tasks which can be successfully performed without
reflection or meaning. It is interesting to note that this reduction often

JOEL HUBICK
greatly improves the efficiency of production. We can see a parallel
in this to how the manufacturing industry improves productivity by
replacing individual workers with machines.
What is significant about industrialization is that it takes a process
and reduces it to its bare essentials which, when discovered, provide
the fastest way to mechanize it for repetition. For example, consider
the woodcarver who crafts a chair. After observing the bare aspects of
a chair and the ways a woodcarver crafts it, the industrialist can create
a factory which produces chairs much more efficiently. Importantly,
this factory produces chairs in less time, with less material, and less
training because the machine does all or most of the work. Here one
could make a Marxist argument for worker alienation, but I am more
interested in tracking Husserl’s idea of crisis. Distinct from the chair
produced by the factory which is simple, streamlined, and straightfor-
ward, the woodcarver’s chair is unique and contains signs of individual
craftsmanship. Those who work in a factory need only learn a single
task and perform it repeatedly. It is not necessary for a factory worker
to understand what each task accomplishes, at which point of the chair
making process he or she is working, or why their task is required in
order to make a chair. By comparison, all this information is required
if not essential for the apprentice woodcarver. In this way the very
reduction of making chairs, which allows for an industrialist to build
a chair producing factory, is at least one way a crisis can be caused.
This crisis can be summarized as reducing a process to a calculation:
a task or set of tasks which accomplishes the ‘same’ thing as the
original process but functions in a more anonymous and efficient way.
The question for us then is whether the increased reports of plagiarism
are really a sign that the education system is in crisis and whether or
not this crisis has its roots in viewing the writing process as a mere
task or calculation.
What is involved in the writing process and what is lost when it is
reduced to a calculation is precisely what concerns us regarding the
issue of plagiarism. In his essay titled “Is Technological Civilization
Decadent, and Why?” (Patočka 1996), Patočka considers the role cal-
culation and mechanization play in society. Patočka states that it is “the
modern mechanism which capitalism was only too glad to turn into a
cult of the mechanical, so contributing to what came to be known as
the industrial revolution. This revolution then penetrates throughout
and ever more completely determines our lives” (Patočka 1996: 111).
In other words, the power discovered in calculation tempts us to locate
it in everything else and thereby reduce everything to a mechanism. In
some areas of existence, this mechanistic reduction improves human
lifestyle but the power it provides can lead to an unnecessary applica-
tion to the whole of existence. Patočka states that “the more modern

technoscience asserts itself as the true relation to what-is, the more
it draws everything natural and then even everything human into its
orbit” (Patočka 1996: 113). The more power we discover in reducing
the world to mechanism, the more we begin to believe that the world
merely amounts to one large machine. When we only allow the world
to appear to us as a machine and participate in this machine as mere
taskmasters (the performance of tasks themselves requiring no genuine
thinking), then we find ourselves in Husserl’s crisis. Patočka states that
“Hannah Arendt used to point out that humans no longer understand
what it is they do and calculate. In their relation to nature, they are
content with mere practical mastery and predictability without intel-
ligibility” (Patočka 1996: 115). Limiting our application of this idea to
university education, we can inquire how students view writing a paper.
Do students today see writing papers as an opportunity to explore
ideas, challenge their own understanding, and try to participate in
their chosen discipline or do they merely see writing papers as a task
which gets them a grade, a grade which gets them through a class, and
a class which gets them through a degree and so on? Has the process
of writing papers today been reduced to merely calculating what needs
to be written in order to get onto the next required task?
The relationship between crisis and technology can be traced back
to Heidegger’s essay “The Question Concerning Technology” (Hei-
degger 2007), where he considers how technology modifies the way
nature reveals itself to the observer. Therein Heidegger states that
“modern science’s way of representing pursues and entraps nature as a
calculable coherence of forces . . . nature reports itself in [a] way . . .
that is identifiable through calculation and . . . it remains orderable as
a system of information” (Heidegger 2007: 326–28). The danger of
technology is not found in its own power to reveal but in its tendency
to eclipse other ways of facilitating nature to reveal itself. Heidegger
is not suggesting we get rid of technology and revert to some kind of
agrarian lifestyle. Rather, he is raising the question of technology so
that we can maintain openness for what nature means in addition to
and beyond an ordered system of calculable forces. Doing so therefore
preserves the idea and power of technology and also preserves other
ways nature may or may not reveal itself. Heidegger states that “to
push on blindly with technology or, what comes to the same, to rebel
helplessly against it and curse it as the work of the devil” (Heidegger
2007: 330) are equally undesirable. The power of calculation is there-
fore not discarded, only qualified, and in this sense Heidegger is not
trying to discard science but merely delimit its power. If modern man
has become drunk on the power of calculation, technology, and science,
then Heidegger is advocating sobriety but not prohibition: sobriety

JOEL HUBICK
to see that although powerful, there is more to phenomena than what
calculation, technology, and science reveal.
We can now compare the problem of restricting nature to something
calculable to how a student or teacher may only allow the writing
process to be viewed in a similar way. If educators, who establish,
design and update pedagogy, only allow the process of writing papers
to emerge as something calculable, then teachers who are trained in
this tradition will propagate this reduction. Furthermore, students
raised in this tradition will likewise only view writing papers as a
task which should be done with the greatest level of efficiency. It
seems clear that if students view writing papers as a mere task, they
will very likely reduce writing to a mere calculation. This calculation
will include simply figuring out the bare minimum of work required
in order to obtain a desired grade. Instead of viewing writing papers
as an opportunity to participate in discourse, students will pursue the
most efficient way to produce a paper and it is in this industrialized
context that plagiarism becomes appealing. If the education system
only wants efficient products then why not make oneself into a paper
writing factory, producing as many papers as possible? Sadly, it seems
like this is indeed the aim of higher academia where everyone already
agrees with the idiom ‘you are your publications.’ If this is the case
then Fish’s account of academia should disturb us, not because his
assessment is wrong but actually because it is correct. Fish states that
“everyday disciplinary practices do not rest on a foundation of philoso-
phy or theory; they rest on a foundation of themselves; no theory or
philosophy can either prop them up or topple them” (Fish 2010: ¶14).
I cannot imagine a more fitting statement exemplifying what Husserl
would describe as crisis. Perhaps the proper response to Fish’s account
of academia is not to criticize his claims, but rather to view his state-
ments as a sign of a crisis and to offer a philosophical response to it.
Plagiarism Understood as False Participation
Before turning to an argument for responsibility, I will first argue that
plagiarism is best understood as a kind of false participation in the edu-
cation process. After plagiarism is understood as false participation in
the educational process, it will become clear how genuine or responsible
participation can be viewed as an excellent philosophical response to
this crisis. Furthermore, once the concept of responsible participation
is clear, it will likewise yield a comprehensive account of how both
teachers and students can safeguard the education process from crisis
by teaching and learning in a responsible and participatory way.
In their essay titled “Plagiarism: Philosophical Perspectives”
Richard Reilly, Samuel Pry, and Mark L. Thomas provide various

philosophical perspectives on the subject of plagiarism. For the sake
of simplicity, they clearly state they are only concerned with discuss-
ing instances of plagiarism in the classroom, what they call “school
plagiarism” (Reilly et al. 2007: 269). They argue that “fundamentally,
plagiarism is a form of deception. The plagiarist is lying: presenting
work as his or her own which is in fact the work of someone else”
(Reilly et al. 2007: 272). According to Reilly, Pry, and Thomas, the
proper response to instances of classroom plagiarism is for teachers
to help [students] understand our position as the recipients of the plagiarism;
to give them a chance to step into OUR shoes [. . . and see that] in plagiariz-
ing, students undermine our autonomy as a faculty. They take away from
our ability to perform the role to which we have dedicated our lives. They
treat us, in other words, as mere instruments for use toward their own ends.
(Reilly et al. 2007: 273)
Aware that they are presenting a ‘teacher-centric’ account, Reilly, Pry,
and Thomas go on to explain how the role of teachers can be changed
in order to properly respond to the problem of plagiarism (Reilly et al.
2007: 282). According to them, teachers are guardians or “gatekeep-
ers to [of] culture; [and] as such [they] have a deep interest in being
certain that those who pass through [their] gates are truly qualified to
do so. To be able to do [their] job adequately [teachers] need accurate
information about the capacities and characters of the students [they]
judge” (Reilly et al. 2007: 275). In this definition, in addition to being
disrespectful and a form of deception, plagiarism undermines the abil-
ity of teachers to fulfil their appointed role in the educational process:
to give students accurate feedback. Specifically within “this process
of education, a student aims for and earns a diploma. This diploma
is the sign but not the substance of an educated person” (Reilly et al.
2007: 279). The substance of an educated person can only be guar-
anteed in addition to their degree / diploma if in fact their education
was a genuine test of their ability, skill, and work ethic. The threat of
plagiarism simply undermines the possibility of education to genuinely
test a student.
In addition to the threat posed to accurate feedback, plagiarism also
isolates the student from their community of learning. Reilly, Pry, and
Thomas conclude that
plagiarism, then, is certainly an act of dis-integration, because of its dishonesty
toward instructor and self. . . . It deprives one of the valuable experience of
actually working through one’s own ideas, [and] of working through the ideas
of others. . . . Plagiarism eviscerates the true learning experience which is
the ultimate substance of the academic degree. (Reilly et al. 2007: 279–80)
Here we can observe a provisional definition of false participation in
contrast to genuine participation. False participation amounts to de-
ceiving a teacher so that a student appears as if they are participating

JOEL HUBICK
in the educational process when in fact they are not. What this robs
them of is precisely what the educational process is aiming to provide:
to instil and challenge students with the ideas, questions, and skills
pertaining to their particular discipline. Reilly, Pry, and Thomas confirm
this by stating that “despite what students may think, assignments are
not just meaningless hoops through which students must jump; they
are meant to foster learning and growth” (Reilly et al. 2007: 271). In
addition to undermining their potential development, plagiarism also
isolates students from their educational community. Although intended
to be predominantly positive, the educational process can also reveal
a student’s weaknesses. In this way “education is a humbling process
that shows us our limitations” and in doing so helps us to acknowl-
edge the wider universe we find ourselves in (Reilly et al. 2007: 279).
When students plagiarize they undermine the ability of the educational
process to teach students about themselves.
Although insightful and apt, the essay of Reilly, Pry, and Thomas
pursues the problem of plagiarism with too much focus upon the teacher
(of which they are aware and acknowledge on page 282) and tends
towards a moralist view. They claim that “education is a moral act. It
involves relationships and choices of moral significance to oneself, to
other students, to the instructor, and to the wider community” (Reilly
et al. 2007: 278). However, their moral conceptualization of plagiarism
does not explain why such acts would also isolate students from their
discipline and educational community. Although I do not necessarily
disagree with their moral appraisal of education and the negative ef-
fects of plagiarism, I think the problem of plagiarism extends beyond
a merely moral definition. Thus, by reconsidering the ideas of Reilly,
Pry, and Thomas and reconceptualising the problem of plagiarism into
the more comprehensive concept of false participation, I believe that we
can maintain the claims Reilly, Pry, and Thomas make about plagiarism
without restricting the phenomenon of plagiarism to a merely moral
conceptualization. Furthermore, the concept of false participation can
account for how plagiarism leads to student isolation and disintegration.
This concept need not remain teacher focused but can also provide a
clear analysis for students. In this way, the concept of false participation
can be understood, not in contrast to but as a further development of,
the work presented by Reilly, Pry, and Thomas. A similar conclusion
can be drawn from Sadler’s scholarship on the topic.
In her essay titled “The Wrongs of Plagiarism: Ten Quick Argu-
ments” (henceforth “Wrongs”) Sadler gives ten arguments for why
plagiarism is problematic: because 1) it is theft, 2) it is deception, 3)
it violates the trust between students and professors, 4) it skews the
grading of a single class for other students, 5) it removes the struggle
/ striving that makes writing papers valuable, 6) it is vicious and can

lead to other vices such as laziness, cowardice, low self-esteem, etc.,
7) it may subsume the educational process into one that is only end-
oriented therefore making plagiarism an efficient gamble worth the
risk, 8) it diminishes the value of a degree, 9) it removes the sense of
achievement in education, and 10) it effaces the student. The first six
arguments seem to be in line with the more morally focused perspec-
tive of Reilly, Pry, and Thomas however arguments seven to ten are
more focused upon what the student gives up or loses: the genuine
opportunity to be challenged, to grow in their education, and to feel
the pride of participating in something difficult yet edifying. For these
reasons Sadler’s essay provides a way to further develop plagiarism as
false participation in order to account for all the varying effects and
different aspects of plagiarism.
Sadler’s seventh argument is that plagiarism can cause dishonest
academic behaviour to falsely appear valuable. She states that
students who get away with academic dishonesty may come to believe, quite
generally, that the best way to ‘get ahead’ in life is to cheat, deceive, violate
trust, or take the easy route. Such a belief may undercut the student’s ability
to partake of the internal goods of a wide variety of practices, limiting his or
her rewards to the external goods of money or status and instilling a corollary
belief that the primary attainments in life are gained through competition
with others, not through cooperation or by challenging oneself to meet the
standards of excellence established by practices. (Sadler 2007: 287)
Here we can see that it is precisely the reduction of goods and edify-
ing practices to inferior or vicious alternatives that makes plagiarism
undesirable. Furthermore, the suggestion that students will assimilate
this vicious behaviour and carry it into other areas of life beyond edu-
cation fits in well with Husserl’s crisis and Patočka and Heidegger’s
concern for pejorative reduction as this would effectively invert the
entire purpose and original intent of education in the first place. In-
terestingly enough, Sadler also states that,
moreover, I believe (though I am not sure how one could prove the point)
that academic dishonesty is likely to inspire further forms of reprehensible
dishonesty, especially in other institutional settings. Academic dishonesty
promotes the idea that the people one encounters in institutions (like univer-
sity) do not matter as people, as individuals, that they are merely a means
to one’s own private ends. . . . The student enters the educational arena as
a self-interested competitor, in an adversarial stance toward instructors and
other students. When this attitude is tolerated, overlooked, or even promoted
in the university, it would not be surprising were students to carry it with them
to other public contexts, disposing them toward the same kind of anonymous
interactions with others, based on privately held ends, competitively fought
for on the grounds of self-interest. (Sadler 2007: 287–88)

JOEL HUBICK
Here it is clear that plagiarism not only threatens to reduce the pri-
mary aim of education to facilitate genuine participation in a subject
or discipline, it also threatens to contaminate other intuitional settings
or practices outside of and beyond education. In response to Sadler’s
question as to ‘how one could prove this point’ we can perhaps ap-
peal to the philosophy of Husserl, Patočka, and Heidegger regarding
crisis. Even if one ultimately finds their philosophical remarks on crisis
unconvincing, they certainly do an excellent job of arguing against
crisis; or in the very least bringing the problem to mind in a thought
provoking manner. For those who agree with Fish regarding the failure
of philosophy to provide something normative in the case of plagiarism,
we can consider a different use or definition of philosophy in addition
to normativity3
: to provoke further thinking / to recollect and review
phenomena so as to allow them to further reveal themselves in new and
dynamic ways. The former would be philosophy in general whereas
the latter would be phenomenology (the specific kind of philosophy
invented by Husserl that both Heidegger and Patočka further develop
in different ways).
Sadler’s ninth and tenth arguments further explicate how plagiarism
may lead to a reduction of education to mere task fulfilment. Plagiarism
threatens to undermine the inherent value of working on a difficult as-
signment and the benefits of successful accomplishment (in learning
something new, further developing a skill, in obtaining a degree, etc.).
When writing a paper is reduced to a mere task,
the average (undergraduate) student [no longer sees] her- or himself as in-
volved in a long-term intellectual project. . . . The student is simply writing
a paper as outlined by the professor’s assignment. Rightly, the student does
not see her paper as making a contribution to the academic discipline or field
of inquiry; [they will] not see [their] writing as contributing to a larger field
of research. (Sadler 2007: 288)
Without anything at stake, any appeal to genuine over false participation
seems to lose its efficacy: why not simply get the highest grade with
the least expenditure of energy? In this reduced context the “univer-
sity [would merely exist] to serve as a conduit for the transference of
information: from (anonymous) professor to (anonymous) student, as
if the process consisted simply in handing-off of pre-packaged [and
uniform] goods” (Sadler 2007: 289). In addition to this not being the
original intention of the educational process, such a state of affairs
might also convince a student that such ‘educational factory work’
really is all there is to life outside of education. If teachers agree that
one of the general objectives of education is to prepare a student for
the ‘real world’ outside of education, then such a reduction would
undermine this possibility.

If plagiarism is therefore understood as false participation in the
educational process, its occurrence both a cause and a sign of crisis
that reduces writing papers to a mere task, the question remains then,
how shall we respond to this situation? Sadler states that
although gaining an unfair advantage by cheating is wrong, if one sees the
enterprise of higher education as primarily a competitive arena, the tempta-
tion to cheat will remain strong. And if one sees academic work primarily
as a product and education primarily in terms of the transference of content
from one person to another—rather than a process by which students exercise
skills, develop abilities, express their individuality, and gradually come to
participate in the construction of knowledge—stealing will remain a reason-
able (though unethical) strategy for individual success. (Sadler 2007: 290)
Here Sadler states that the real danger is that the educational system
itself can lead a student to view plagiarism as a viable albeit danger-
ous gamble. The two-fold problem of plagiarism is therefore that it
both may cause a student to reduce education to a mere collection of
tasks and that in an already reduced educational system, the gamble
to plagiarize will appear as an efficient albeit dishonest way through
education.4
This supports what I have argued above and although I
agree with Sadler’s account of plagiarism I disagree with her suggested
response to it. Sadler states that her own
anecdotal evidence suggests that there are fewer cases of plagiarism in classes
where the penalty for plagiarism is known to be severe and to be enforced.
If the penalty for plagiarism is to serve as a disincentive or deterrent, it must
combat the student’s assumption that plagiarism serves his or her interest.
. . . The minimum penalty for plagiarism in my course is failing the course,
not merely failing the assignment. (Sadler 2007: 290)
I agree that teachers must clearly define plagiarism and explain to stu-
dents why it is wrong; however I worry that merely having very clear
explanations of and strict penalties for plagiarism will still only treat
the symptoms and not the underlying problem of plagiarism.5
Sadler
seems aware of this for she later adds that “there are alternative policies
that may achieve the same result [of reduced instances of plagiarism],
but they must be structured in such a way as to counteract the student’s
perception that a dishonest approach is a reasonable bet for success
in the course” (Sadler 2007: 290–91). What remains important is to
try and find a way to not just inform students what plagiarism is and
explain why it should be undesirable, but to furthermore give them
a rationale that convinces them that it is not a worthwhile option in
education.6
This third aspect is not instilled in students who are simply
following the rules out of fear.7
In other words, clear explanation and
strict penalties will not engender responsible participation even though
it may reduce instances of plagiarism. Sadler does not explore any al-
ternative policies in “Wrongs” but by continuing this discussion with

JOEL HUBICK
an examination of her essay “How Important Is Student Participation
in Teaching Philosophy?” (Sadler 2004), we can further develop an
argument for responsible participation that includes a way to convince
students why plagiarism is not worth a second thought. This argument
for responsibility will furthermore accomplish everything already
discussed above by providing a way to engender a less adversarial
or fearful understanding of plagiarism. If successful, students who
understand plagiarism as false participation will likewise understand
why it is not a worthwhile gamble.
Argument for Responsible Participation
In light of this description of our current academic situation, we can not
only see why plagiarism is a problem but also why it is not necessarily
emerging merely from the laziness or immorality of students (although
those attributes can still be at play). Rather, the problem of plagiarism
also seems to be woven into the very structure of how we organize
education: when education is allowed to be reduced to merely memo-
rizing lectures, regurgitating what a teacher or a text says, and writ-
ing papers only to pass a class, then plagiarism becomes an efficient,
albeit dishonest, way for a student to get themselves through school.
When a student believes that getting an A or a 17 on an assignment
is more important than genuinely understanding and writing about the
assigned topic, then plagiarism seems to be the most appealing way
to be efficient. Our proper response to this situation should be more
than just reaffirming what plagiarism means or increasing the punish-
ment for transgression; we also need to engender more responsibility
in students and teachers. The next difficult question is then: how do
we accomplish this?
In her essay titled “How Important Is Student Participation in
Teaching Philosophy?” (Sadler 2004) Sadler argues for a way to bal-
ance the traditional lecture style of teaching with an interactive ‘in-
class participation style’ of teaching. Once we have a clear grasp of
Sadler’s understanding of classroom participation, we will apply it to
the problem of plagiarism. The key component of Sadler’s strategy of
the interactive teaching style is to encourage students to discuss and
think out loud on their feet during class. In order to explain this in-
teractive style of teaching Sadler presents three interrelated goals that
are designed to overcome three of the most common undergraduate
obstacles that bar genuine participation: 1) students who fail to take
philosophical problems seriously enough to fully engage with them,
2) students who fail to work beyond their beginner’s frustration, and
3) students who fail to see the relevance of philosophical problems to
their own contemporary or personal concerns (Sadler 2004: 253–54).

The first goal facilitates students to thoughtfully encounter the
depth, difficulty, and intrigue of philosophical problems in order to
overcome their casual and dismissive attitude. Sadler states that she
helps “students to see that philosophic questions and problems have a
long history, which is worth studying and becoming acquainted with
[. . . and] when students are made aware of the history of a philosophic
problem, they are more likely to appreciate the depth, difficulty, and
intrigue of a problem” (Sadler 2004: 253). Revealing the depth of a
philosophical problem to a student helps to “prevent students from foun-
dering on an obstacle quite common to undergraduates: a casual and
dismissive attitude, which crops up when a cursory look at a philosophic
question or argument is thought sufficient to reveal an obvious answer
or rejoinder” (Sadler 2004: 254). The two most common and naïve re-
sponses to many philosophical questions are that 1) the student simply
jumps to an obvious or easy answer and or 2) the student who simply
rejects the question altogether as frivolous; in both cases the student
fails to directly and fully engage with the question itself. The way to
overcome this obstacle is to facilitate class discussion because “when
students are required to provide aloud, in class, counter-arguments to
the ones they may so quickly and silently reject, they are forced to
confront the difficulty of generating successful philosophic arguments
and insights of their own” (Sadler 2004: 254). In other words, by get-
ting students involved in classroom discussion, they are less likely to
jump to an easy answer or fail to see what makes philosophical ques-
tions worth contemplating. Encouraging students to speak out loud in
class forces them to really engage with the questions under discussion.
The second goal is to help students develop their skills of writing
and thinking in philosophy in order to help them overcome beginner’s
frustration. Sadler states that
even when (or perhaps just when) the attitude of dismissiveness is dispelled,
students can easily succumb to a second obstacle to enjoying and engaging
with philosophy: frustration. . . . They may feel that it is impossible for them
to participate well or intelligently in the dialogue they have become to rec-
ognize is constitutive of philosophy. (Sadler 2004: 254)
When a student realizes that the difficulty of philosophy is not a sign
of failure or weakness but is actually a sign of genuine participation
(and that such participation includes being corrected, thinking out
loud, and making mistakes), they will no longer view their beginner’s
frustration as something wholly pejorative. By encouraging them to
speak in class students “have the opportunity to be corrected . . . to
make attempts [to understand] and to explore possibilities [of texts]”
(Sadler 2004: 254). Instead of being a place where knowledge and cor-
rect answers are simply stated and confirmed, the classroom becomes
a place where students can speak out loud, be corrected, develop and

JOEL HUBICK
clarify their ideas. She adds that “ideas expressed orally are often more
tentative and malleable. When students voice their thoughts in class,
they are often more amenable to revision or to rethinking what they’ve
expressed” (Sadler 2004: 254). What may have appeared as frivolous or
easily resolved in a passing glance is more directly engaged by a stu-
dent when they are encouraged to speak out loud. According to Sadler,
voicing their ideas in class, students are also immediately challenged to reach
beyond what they have privately considered to encompass the unanticipated
responses of the professor or of other students. Ideas and views that seemed
unassailable or self-evident are often revealed to be hasty, inconclusive,
unrefined, or controversial. And although students do sometimes resent hav-
ing their ideas thus revealed, or sometimes feel threatened by this prospect,
they often are excited and delighted to have their ideas taken seriously and
to watch them undergo change as discussion proceeds (Sadler 2004: 255).
Although it is a scary process to speak on one’s feet, the feeling of
being taken seriously and listened to makes the challenge and risk
worthwhile. This classroom participation can also inspire a student as
it provides a sense of pride. When a student knows that they will be
taken seriously when they speak, this further encourages students to
take what others say just as seriously (especially the teacher). In this
way genuine participation works both ways: 1) it brings the coursework
under discussion in a class into focus as something worth wrestling
and engaging with and 2) it inspires students to participate more often
as it builds up their self confidence.
The third goal is to make philosophical problems relevant to the stu-
dent’s contemporary or personal concerns. This further helps a student
to overcome the common and initial impression that most philosophical
problems are strange, abstract, pointless or only relevant in historical
contexts. Sadler states that
when an instructor makes an effort to tie abstract philosophical ideas and
arguments to questions of direct personal, political, or practical concern,
students are often more eager to engage . . . when they see such abstraction
as pertinent and meaningful, they are more likely to invest themselves in their
study of philosophy. (Sadler 2004: 256)
By showing how philosophy is not just a language, concept, or argu-
mentative game played by strangely speaking individuals, teachers can
reveal the touchdown value of philosophy and in this way show how
“philosophy really starts to come alive” (Sadler 2004: 256). When at-
tempts are made to connect philosophy to real world problems and or
current events, a student begins to explore the real aim of philosophy:
to think about and further understand the world around them. This re-
veals the power of philosophy to be ahistorical and therefore applicable
to nearly any or all areas of life. Such empowerment or edification is
surely the ultimate if not most general aim of any educational system.

When all three of these obstacles are anticipated, the greatest
chance for genuine class room participation is optimal. “To give stu-
dents time to speak in class” Sadler states “is not only to give them
an opportunity to learn through the active exercise of their growing
philosophic skills, it is, ideally, a way of respecting them as people
and as interlocutors” (Sadler 2004: 257). By engendering a sense of
inclusion, pride, and ownership of what is going on in class early on,
students feel invested, that they are part of a community where their
voice, thoughts, and ideas have value (especially when, they are party
formed, burgeoning, or confused). This communal feeling that is at-
tainable in a classroom setting can be further developed to life beyond
and outside of the classroom. Facilitating in-class participation helps
students to overcome their beginner’s biases and frustrations. Although
this is useful for students to do well in studying philosophy, it fur-
thermore helps them develop their own character: The experience of
fear and frustration are recognized as obstacles that can be overcome,
rather than as dead ends in one’s own development. Such development
can and is learned from any and all disciplines.
Here it is possible therefore to further connect how classroom
participation is related to participation in one’s discipline. The fruits
of genuine participation, the sense of community, inclusion, pride,
investment, and ownership, reveal to the student the value and power
of education. When students are thereby empowered through genuine
participation they will be begin to see how such empowerment also
leads to guardianship in that with power also comes responsibility. In
this sense, classroom participation foreshadows participation in a dis-
cipline; either in reading, teaching, or writing within their vocational
lives, or in living as an educated person in daily life by using the skills
of listening, thinking, etc. As empowered members of the educational
community, students will begin to see what is specifically undesirable
about false participation, including plagiarism.
I certainly agree with Sadler’s position and applaud her efforts to
show how in-class discussion can be used to help undergraduate stu-
dents grow in their understanding and appreciation of philosophy. By
showing how directing students to speak out loud in class can help
them to further think through their own ideas, those of other students,
and make comparative and cooperative attempts to provide feedback
to each other, Sadler provides excellent insight into how a teacher
can greatly improve classroom experience. The only limitations of
her position is that it tends to focus upon what teachers can do (as
opposed to what students ought or ought not to do) and she focuses
primarily upon the activity of students speaking in class. This is very
useful for its pragmatic focus, but by further developing her ideas to
include both teacher and student responsibilities, we can arrive at a

JOEL HUBICK
more comprehensive view of genuine and responsible participation that
can be facilitated in all areas of education.
To return to the issue of plagiarism, we can view Sadler’s idea of
participation as an initial way to further clarify what false participation
means. The real danger of plagiarism is that it makes it impossible for
the educational process to accomplish its goals. It is impossible for
students to develop their own ideas; to engage with and explore the
difficulty, depth, and intrigue of philosophy’s (or any subject’s) history,
questions, problems, and solutions; to relate abstract concepts, ideas,
or intuitions to mundane, political, or personal issues; to wrestle with
texts and to strive to develop their own personal reading, listening, and
thinking skills. All of these fruits of the educational process are made
inert when a student plagiarizes; although they appear to be participat-
ing, this appearance proves to be false. Conceptualizing plagiarism as
false participation proves to be a more encompassing way to account
for what plagiarism means, what it threatens, and how it undermines the
educational process. This more general concept of false participation
encompasses the other definitions of plagiarism and remains open for
further application should new formations be developed. What teach-
ers really want from students is for them to participate in the subject
they are teaching, and to do so in a false way completely undermines
the entire educational enterprise.
Plagiarism is not only a problem but a symptom of a crisis in edu-
cation. We certainly need to make sure students understand plagiarism
and help them to avoid it. Students need to understand from their own
discipline’s perspective what plagiarism means and what they sacrifice
when they plagiarize. However, if all we do is reaffirm what plagiarism
means and tell students it is forbidden we are only treating the symp-
tom and not the underlying disease. We need not only to ask ourselves
why plagiarism is becoming more and more frequent but also, as Fish
brought up, to ask why students do not always seem to care when they
are caught plagiarizing (Fish 2010: ¶4) and why, after being caught,
they do not always initially feel that they have done something wrong.8
Such a line of questioning leads us to harder and more fundamental
questions such as what is learning, what does it mean to be a teacher
and what does it mean to be a student? If we can maintain a serious
reflection on these questions then we will take at least one step towards
emulating and engendering a greater responsibility for learning in stu-
dents. Practically speaking, teachers can begin this reflection through
peer reviewing their classroom experience, composing condition of
service agreements,9
and or conducting student surveys.

How Teachers and Students can Practically Safeguard
Responsible Education
If we find the above argument for responsible participation convincing,
then the next question is ‘what can teachers practically do in order to
engender responsible participation in students and what can students
do to reciprocate this effort?’ In what follows, I give a detailed list
of teacher and student responsibilities and provide some pragmatic
strategies for how both students and teachers can implement, secure,
and safeguard responsible education. As responsible education is a
much larger issue, I will confine my analysis to the problem of pla-
giarism, specifically how teachers and students can view themselves,
education, and the specific role of writing papers in such a way as to
combat false participation.
The proper response and solution to the problem of plagiarism lies
with both the teacher and the student. Both parties need to become
more aware of the crisis in the educational process and understand
the role they play in it. Once achieved, this awareness of a crisis will
enable students and teachers to safeguard the writing process from
becoming reduced to a mere task. This will be accomplished when the
writing process is clarified as an opportunity for learning and genuine
participation in a subject matter. In order for this solution to be suc-
cessful, effort from the whole community of students and teachers in
addition to those who control, draft, and update university pedagogy is
required. By executing and sustaining these values, teachers will lead
students by example and introduce them to what responsible participa-
tion in their respective discipline means and looks like. These values
need to be implemented early and repeatedly modelled by teachers in
the educational process in addition to being enshrined in the whole of
educational organization and philosophy. As a community, we share
the responsibility of this problem and therefore the solution is also
communal.
The relationship between teachers and students is one of care
wherein education fulfils its intent to facilitate genuine participation
in a subject or discipline. The main task for a teacher is to engender
care. This is accomplished by implementing and maintaining four
teaching values: 1) balancing the ethos (spirit) of a class with its telos
(end goal), 2) emulating receptivity for course material, 3) meeting
student’s questions half way, and 4) teaching for oneself as well as for
students. However, these values are only half of the story and in order
for responsible teaching to be successful the student must fulfil their
reciprocal task of choosing to care. This is accomplished by implement-
ing and maintaining four student values: 1) committing to fully engage
with course material, 2) practicing the receptivity teacher’s emulate,

JOEL HUBICK
3) risking questions, and 4) learning for oneself as well as for the
teacher. When teachers exhibit and engender this kind of care for their
discipline and students reciprocate, plagiarism will become something
undesirable. What follows is a detailed explanation of each individual
value and how they interrelate across the teacher-student relationship.
Teacher: Engender Care by Balancing the Ethos (Spirit) of a Class
with its Telos (End Goal)
On the side of the teacher, I think it is important to keep both the
ethos and telos of a class in mind while educating. The ethos of a class
comprises its atmosphere, the specific ways in which a teacher deliv-
ers the content of the course and evaluates the level of learning that
students’ exhibit. Currently, I think great care and attention is already
given to the classroom experience if we follow Sadler’s suggestions
in her paper “Participation.” However, an enhanced awareness of a
crisis will help teachers keep classroom ethos from being reduced to
something calculable. The telos or end goal of a course is not just to
obtain a good grade or to pass so that one can take the next required
course. The goal of a course is to introduce a student to the craft of
participation in the class’s discipline and this must occur within the
ethos of a class. Participation requires a lot of know-how, which sup-
ports the efforts of teachers and students to present and understand
content as clearly as possible. However course content must be kept
from eclipsing what it enables: genuine participation in the subject
matter.10
It is up to the teacher to breathe life into their subject mat-
ter and to balance correctness with thinking; both are required for an
excellent class, but a good teacher is not enough.
Student: Choose to Care by Fully Engaging with Course Material
On the side of the student, it is important to genuinely try to engage
with the course material and steel oneself from taking an instrumen-
tal or consumerist attitude regarding education. According to Sadler,
courage is central to a student’s responsibility in the class as “it takes
courage to express openly and publicly both what one is uncertain
about and what one is committed to” (Sadler 2004: 259). Again, she
is focused upon speaking out loud in class, but this idea and value of
courage can be extended to participation in one’s discipline: reading
with courage and thinking with courage also enable a student to see
what they are uncertain about and committed to. This requires that
instead of merely reading texts ‘to see what they say’ or coming to
class for the attendance grade, students ought to read with openness,
to allow for the ideas, questions, and solutions stated in a text to chal-
lenge them personally and then to bring those challenges to class to

be further analyzed, explored and thought through with real questions.
Thinking with courage also comprises a dedication to following an
idea or argument to its conclusion. Thus, it is important for a student
to understand their own responsibility to make a courageous effort.
Sadler states that “although an impassioned and committed professor
can certainly be inspiring, she may not inspire students to believe that
what she cares about is worth caring about” (Sadler 2004: 256). Even
an excellent teacher who passionately expounds course material will
not be enough to sway the student who simply is not willing to make
an effort. Choosing to engage with the class is solely the responsibil-
ity of the student.
Teacher: Engender Care by Emulating Receptivity
Although it is the responsibility of the student to choose to care about
learning, this value for learning must also be emulated,11
engendered,
and cultivated by teachers.12
In his work What Is Called Thinking
(Heidegger 2004), Heidegger stated that “the teacher is ahead of his
apprentices in this alone, that he has still far more to learn than they
. . . the teacher must be capable of being more teachable than the ap-
prentices” (Heidegger 2004: 15). In addition to reading a text in order
to have and recite the content it contains, we can also read a text as
a response to an original problem. We certainly need the first level of
understanding to reach the second, but a teacher is more teachable than
a student because only the teacher understands the gravity and vast
implications of the original question the text is aiming to respond to.
Perhaps instead of only revealing their mastery of a subject, teachers
should also reveal the questions they are still pursuing. There is always
more to learn from a text than the mere acquisition and regurgitation of
its content and in this way, teaching can evolve beyond mere expertise
and include the pursuit of knowledge in addition to the possession of it.
If teachers emulate a value for the pursuit of knowledge, this will
show students that thinking in questions is just as important as having
correct answers. Thus, a teacher is responsible for trying to engender
care for their subject material by revealing to students their own care
for the subject matter. As we have already seen, this can be initialized
by facilitating students to speak in class and by giving them an open
and inviting space to fail and be corrected, or discuss what remains
genuinely unclear for both the student and the professor. When both
the student and the teacher view what remains unclear about a subject,
text, or idea as something they can continue to pursue, think about,
and discuss, they will likewise view the teacher-student relationship as
a team and not as an anonymous exchange of information.

JOEL HUBICK
Student: Choose to Care by Practicing Receptivity
In addition to caring, students also need to practice the receptivity
emulated by their teachers. Sadler states that
by listening well, students may become aware of their own, emerging philo-
sophic voice and see that they can aspire to contribute to a philosophical
discussion that extends beyond the limited context of the classroom and the
limited response of fellow students to a wider and deeper historical channel.
(Sadler 2004: 261)
When a student wrongly believes that their own receptivity is something
that cannot be developed or improved, they might respond to difficulty
by giving up or opting out.13
However, when receptivity is understood
as a skill that needs practice to be improved, students will be able to
get beyond their initial fear of not understanding a text or argument.
Failing to understand a teacher’s lecture or failing to grasp what is at
stake in a text will therefore change from being a reason to give up
into a novice sign of engagement.
When teachers express their own struggle to understand difficult
course material as a pursuit of knowledge alongside their attainment
and mastery of it, students may likewise view their own struggle, not
just as a linear process towards the teacher’s emulated mastery, but
also in a more dynamic process towards the teacher’s emulated pursuit.
For example, a teacher could share with students various developing
interpretations they had regarding a text prior to re-reading it a few
times and in this way show the individual stages of their own growth.
A student can then view their own emerging ideas in a developing pro-
cess, rather than in a binary state of right or wrong. If a student gives
an incorrect but promising interpretation of a text, the teacher could
respond by pointing out what is problematic alongside what remains
promising. In this more complex and dynamic scheme, ‘being smart’
will include the constant pursuit of further knowledge alongside the
already valued attainment of knowledge.
Teacher: Engender Care by Meeting a Question Half-Way
By meeting students half way, education evolves from being a one way
conversation that merely transfers information from teacher to student
into a two-way dialogue14
where both master and pupil discuss, debate,
and explore ideas.15
Sadler states that “to take students seriously as
interlocutors, is in part, to recognize that they may believe that impor-
tant ideas and values are at stake in philosophical discussion, even as
they fail to do them justice” (Sadler 2004: 258). Thus, one pragmatic
way a teacher can meet a student half way is to help show how their
fumbled or confusing question can be clarified and corrected in a
manner that also reveals ways for further improvement. I personally

find that the best way to respond to a student’s question is to first try
and state it back to them, but in a clearer or more applicable way (in
light of what has already been discussed or covered in class). Even if
unsuccessful, the initial attempt of trying to meet a student halfway
may foster mutual respect between teacher and student.
Meeting students half way through questioning further reveals that
education is not a process wherein students are tasked to memorize,
repeat, and regurgitate what the teacher says. Furthermore, it avoids the
very frustrating experience of playing ‘guess what is in the teacher’s
mind.’ When a teacher makes an effort to help a student clarify their
own opaque ramblings, this further encourages students to make more
effort to try to understand what initially appears to be difficult course
content.
Student: Choose to Care by Risking Questions
Although everyone is not equally gifted in memorization, anyone can sit
down and simply try to commit to memory lists, definitions, arguments,
positions or premises. Students who initially believe that education
can be summed up through passive memorization and regurgitation
must be jolted into the domain of thinking. Although there are areas of
education that may be exhausted through technical appropriation (for
example in some vocational training programs) the mere acquisition
of information is rarely the ultimate outcome or intent of education.
Classroom experience at all levels is intended to be a laboratory of
discussion, debate, and discourse where students challenge ideas as
much as they take them over, contemplate, accept or reject them. Again
this level of give and take is not equal in all disciplines, but students
must commit themselves to risking questions.
The risk of asking a question goes beyond the danger of sounding
stupid; it also includes the risk of following an idea (or a challenge to
an idea) through to the end, to its full implications. As teachers will
look for students who dare to take a risk and meet them halfway, this
can only be done when students ask genuine questions either based
upon their own developing understanding or their current confusion.
Such questions are not limited to asking about a definition or seek-
ing clarification; they also include the application of course material
to issues that lie beyond the classroom or text, or questions as to the
overall interrelated structure of ideas taken from other classes. Such
questions are not possible unless students have committed themselves,
like Socrates, to following an idea “wherever, like a wind it might lead
us” (Plato 1992). However, students can only do this after teachers
have shown them how.

JOEL HUBICK
Teacher: Engender Care by Teaching for Oneself as well as for
Students
The specific way a teacher can implement responsibility in students
is to view teaching in a two-fold way where a teacher teaches both
for the student and for themselves. Teaching for the student has been
sufficiently explored thus far, but teachers should also teach for them-
selves. Sadler states that
it can be very exciting and edifying for students to witness a skilled lecturer
directly enter the historically unfolding philosophical discussions . . . seeing
that the lecturer is participating in a dialogue with other, absent philoso-
phers—historical or contemporary—invites students to imagine themselves
also taking up the same activity. (Sadler 2004: 261)
Thus, while a teacher should try to create a charitable, open, and in-
viting place for students to contribute within, they should also aim to
impress; to show their full abilities, accomplishments, and mastery—in
a word, they need to inspire. All too often this impressive side of pro-
fessors is only used to shut down a student rather than to show them
what studying philosophy can do, what it can achieve! It is also an
enjoyable experience for a teacher to show their full level of knowl-
edge. When students and teachers fulfil their individual responsibilities,
students will have the opportunity “both to learn from the example of
the professor, whose lectures are more than informative, but are also
creative and inspiring, and to struggle to emulate the relevant skills
and virtues by being respected as participants in discussion” (Sadler
2004: 265). A teacher’s mastery of a subject is not always enough to
inspire students, the proper attitude is also necessary.
Although students are not always perceptive of course content,
they are nearly always perceptive of a teacher’s attitude. Teachers who
simply do not care, are just going through the motions, or reveal that
they believe nothing is really at stake in their subject matter stand out
immediately in contrast to teachers with real passion. However, it is
understandable that after years and years of teaching the same course
or content, an instructor may find it difficult to maintain their level
of passion. In these cases, teachers would do well to try and find new
ways to keep their subjects interesting for themselves. This could
take many forms and may also be genuinely beyond the capacities or
recognition of the students but so long as it makes teaching a course
interesting for the teacher, this attitude will help to maintain vitality
in the classroom.

Student: Choose to Care by Learning for Oneself as well as for the
Teacher
A student who only seeks to learn for the sake of a teacher is one who
only memorizes what a course is about in order to regurgitate it for the
exam. Trying to figure out the bare minimum of what a teacher wants
a student to say or think further reduces education to an anonymous
system of information exchange. To combat this, students should spend
time thinking about and reflecting on course content in more personal
ways. In addition to exploring and trying to understand these ideas
for the sake of the class (the teacher, their assignments, their grades,
etc.) students should also consider and apply course content beyond
the classroom experience (their own personal reflections, individual
opinions, socio-political concerns, etc.). Teachers, if they are teaching
in a responsible way, do not just want their students to simply take on
and memorize everything said in a classroom; they also want to teach
individual minds, persons with their own characteristics and concerns.
Thus in addition to seeing what is at stake in a class from the per-
spective of the teacher (what the course is aimed to accomplish, etc.) a
student should also consider a course’s content on a personal level; to
consider what they want out of a class in addition to obtaining a good
grade. Teachers and students can therefore design non-grade related
assignments that facilitate students to get what they want out of class.
This does not mean reducing a class into a debate of personal opinions
however. A good balance between learning what a class is aiming to
teach and responding with some personal reflections is a way for a
student to both learn for the teacher and for themselves.
Conclusion
To avoid falling into some kind of idealism, it should be stated that not
all of education can be like this. There will always be average teach-
ers, average students, and average courses. There are also disciplines
and courses which by definition are exhausted through imitation and
memorization. I am therefore not suggesting that every teacher, student,
and subject in university change accordingly, but perhaps philosophy
could restore itself to being the exemplar discipline and emulate re-
sponsible education. With efforts made on the side of the teacher to
balance course instruction with the original purpose of education and
on the side of the student to choose to care and genuinely engage with
course work, I think philosophy can set a new standard for responsi-
bility in education. Furthermore, plagiarism, now clarified as a kind
of false participation, will lose its false appearance as a worthwhile
strategy for being efficient.

JOEL HUBICK
With both roles of the teacher and student clarified and a few
detailed possibilities explored, the teacher-student relationship can
move into a state of responsibility that combats the industrialization
of paper writing. Although there will always be those who plagiarize,
those who merely want to participate in a false way, these changes in
pedagogy will remove the reasonable lure of plagiarism for students
genuinely seeking responsible education. In this approach, educating
students on what plagiarism means and why it is wrong remains central
to convincing them what responsible participation means; both in the
classroom and in a respective discipline.
List of Responsibilities
Teacher’s Responsibility is to engender care by:
• Balancing the ethos (spirit) of a class with its telos (end
goal)
• Emulating receptivity for course material
• Meeting student’s questions half way
• Teaching for oneself as well as for students
The Student’s Responsibility is to choose to care by:
• Committing to fully engage with course material
• Practicing the receptivity teacher’s emulate
• Risking questions
• Learning for oneself as well as for the teacher
Notes
1. Although Fish does not present evidence for the claim that students caught plagia-
rizing do not seem to care, according to Nikunj Dalal’s article “Responding to Plagiarism
using Reflective Means,” after confronting students, many “would start by denying they
had plagiarized at all and later, when they knew they were discovered, would rationalize
or make light of their actions until experiencing feelings of grief or shame” (Dalal 2015:
8).
2. Stanley Fish’s article is posted on a NewYork Times Opinion website and thus has
no page numbers. In order to quote Fish directly, all subsequent references to his article
note the paragraph number.
3. For a detailed normative analysis of plagiarism outside of the classroom in the
domain of scientific research, see Gert Helgesson and Stefan Eriksson, “Plagiarism in
Research,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18(1) (2015): 91–101.
4. In Dalal’s study, one student explained their reasoning for plagiarizing as choosing
“a shortcut to success” (Dalal 2015: 8). This clearly shows that in addition to demarking
and describing what plagiarism is we also need to address the problem that plagiarism
can appear as an efficient gamble for ‘success.’

5. In his paper “Reflections on Plagiarism,” from Topoi Fabio Paglieri also suggests
harsh penalties for plagiarism. He states that “plagiarists have to pay always the full price
of their misdeed. . . . The penalty must always be as harsh as possible” (Paglieri 2015: 4).
6. Alternatively, in her article “Responses to Student Plagiarism in Higher Educa-
tion Across Europe,” Irene Glendinning found that “many teachers, senior managers and
national respondents (United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Finland, Germany, Austria)
implied that providing [a plagiarism detection tool] together with the threat of sanctions
was a sufficient deterrent” (Glendinning 2014: 13). However, although having a sufficient
deterrent may decrease instances of plagiarism, it may not necessarily do so because it
engenders responsibility in students.
7. Dalal states that “the prevalent approaches based on sanctions may often be viewed
as punitive and while they may bring about desired changes in behavior, it is not clear
whether the behavioral changes are based on fear of punishment or tranformative inner
learning. If change arises from fear of detection and fear of punishment, a person may
cheat again in situations where they perceive they are unlikely to be caught or punished”
(Dalal 2015: 11).
8. Dalal 2015: 8.
9. For example, see Christopher Day’s article “In-service Teacher Education in
Europe: Conditions and Themes for Development in the 21st Century” (Day 1997).
10. For a detailed analysis and presentation of how dialogue, reflection, and other
non-instrumental methods of teaching can be used to facilitate genuine participation the
educational process, see Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education by Anne
Brockbank and Ian McGill (Brockbank and McGill 1998).
11. Glendinning states that “the need for public figures and academic staff to set a clear
example to young people about what constitutes good practice in writing and research has
never been greater” (Glendinning 2014: 15). It is, therefore, not enough to simply inform
students about plagiarism, teachers need to also lead by example.
12. Dalal suggests that a teacher’s response to specific instances of plagiarism “calls
for mindfulness, empathy, and skilful dialogue on the part of the instructor and encourages
critical self-reflection in the student. The reflective approach places greater demands of
time, attention, and effort on the part of . . . the instructor” (Dalal 2015: 10). Although
requiring more effort, encouraging genuine participation in young students will certainly
be worth it. However, in order for this to function well, the extra time required for such
an investment needs to also be recognized and accounted for by educational institutes,
boards, and committees.
13. An interesting study on the problem of students ‘opting out’ can be found inAaron
Hochandel and Dora Finamore’s paper “Fixed And Growth Mindset In Education And
How Grit Helps Students Persist In The Face Of Adversity” (2015). Therein, they follow
Angela L. Duckworth’s definition of grit as “passions and persistence for long-term goals”
(Duckworth and Quinn 2009: 166). Hochandel and Finamore state that, “as Duckworth’s
research expanded, she learned that Carol Dweck, PhD, Stanford University, was conduct-
ing studies to determine how a fixed belief that failure is permanent could prevent students
from academic success. Duckworth concluded that grit could be developed by having a
‘growth mindset.’ Dweck’s studies were demonstrating that teaching young students how
the brain is capable of change when faced with challenges helped them persevere and
develop a growth mindset. . . . Students who value effort are said to have a growth mindset.
They perceive ability as a malleable skill. Those who think intelligence is inherent and

JOEL HUBICK
unchangeable exert less effort to succeed and have a fixed mindset (permanent capacity)”
(48). In response to this idea, they conclude that “the growth mindset can be taught to
faculty, students and parents. . . . Faculty should not focus on making just good grades,
but how to challenge [students] and teach them to create solutions. In addition, teaching
a growth mindset and grit facilitates long-term goals and how to achieve them” (49). For
more information on the concept of grit, see Duckworth et al., “Grit: Perseverance and
Passion for Long-Term Goals,” and Haimovitz and Dweck, “What Predicts Children’s
Fixed and Growth Intelligence Mind-Sets? Not Their Parents’ View of Intelligence but
Their Parents’ View of Failure.”
14. In his article “Cheating 101: Ethics as a Lab Course,” Joel Marks states that “over
the years [he has] come to view dialogue as the heart of the process of both philosophy
and teaching/learning it” (Marks 2003: 135).
15. Dalal states that “this notion of dialogue is clearly more than a discussion or a
meaningful conversation or interchange of opinions between two or more persons; par-
ticipants are also engaged in observing their own thought, preconceptions, assumptions,
and beliefs during the dialogue” (Dalal 2015: 4).
Bibliography
Brockbank, Anne, and Ian McGill. 1998. Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher
Education. Bickingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open Uni-
versity Press.
Dalal, Nikunj. 2015. “Responding to Plagiarism using Reflective Means,” International
Journal for Educational Integrity 11(4): 1–12.
Day, Christopher. 1997. “In-service Teacher Education in Europe: Conditions and Themes
for Development in the 21st Century,” Journal of In-Service Education (now Profes-
sional Developments in Education) 23(1): 39–54.
Duckworth, Angela, Christopher Peterson, Michael D. Matthews, and Dennis R. Kelly.
2007. “Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 92: 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Duckworth, Angela, and P. D. Quinn. 2009. “Development and Validation of Short Grit
Scale (Grit-S),” Journal of Personality Assessment 91(2): 166–74.
Fish, Stanley. 2010. “Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal,” New York Times. Retrieved
from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-
deal/?_r=0; accessed September 1, 2015.
Glendinning, Irene. 2014. “Responses to Student Plagiarism in Higher Education Across
Europe,” International Journal for Educational Integrity 10(1): 4–20.
Haimovitz, Kyla, and Carol S. Dweck. 2016. “What Predicts Children’s Fixed and Growth
Intelligence Mind-Sets? Not Their Parents’ Views of Intelligence but Their Parents’
Views of Failure,” Psychological Science 27(6): 859–69.
Heidegger, Martin. 2004. What Is Called Thinking?, trans. J. Glenn Gray. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Heidegger, Martin. 2007. “The Question Concerning Technology,” in Basic Writings:
Revised and Expanded Edition, trans. David Farrell Krell. New York: Routledge.
Helgesson, Gert, and Stefan Eriksson. 2015. “Plagiarism in Research,” Medicine, Health
Care and Philosophy 18: 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8
Hochandel, Aaron, and Dora Finamore. 2015. “Fixed and Growth Mindset in Education
and How Grit Helps Students Persist in the Face ofAdversity,” Journal of International
Education Research 11(1): 47–50. https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v11i1.9099

Husserl, Edmund. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences andTranscendental Phenomenol-
ogy: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, trans. David Carr. Evanston,
Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
KU Leuven. 2015. “Save Face—Don’t Plagiarize,” retrieved from http://www.kuleuven.
be/plagiarism/; accessed September 1, 2015.
Marks, Joel. 2003. “Cheating 101: Ethics as a Lab Course,” Teaching Philosophy 26(2):
131–45. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200326230
Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. “Reflections on Plagiarism,” Topoi 34: 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9313-8
Patočka, Jan. 1996. “Is Technological Civilization Decadent, and Why?,” in Heretical
Essays in the Philosophy of History, trans. Ezarim Kohák, ed. James Dodd. Chicago:
Open Court Publishing.
Plato. 1992. The Republic, trans. G. M. A. Grube, rev. C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company.
Reilly, Richard, Samuel Pry, and Mark L. Thomas. 2007. “Plagiarism: Philosophical
Perspectives,” Teaching Philosophy 30(3): 269–82.
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200730313
Sadler, Brook J. 2004. “How Important Is Student Participation in Teaching Philosophy?,”
Teaching Philosophy 27(3): 251–67.
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200427333
Sadler, Brook J. 2007. “The Wrongs of Plagiarism: Ten Quick Arguments,” Teaching
Philosophy 30(3): 283–91. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200730314
Joel Hubick, PhD Candidate. HIW Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven, Kardinaal Mer-
cierplein 2 - bus 3200, Leuven, Belgium, 3000; joel.hubick@kuleuven.be

A Philosophical Response To Plagiarism Teaching Philosophy 2016 DOI 10.5840 Teachphil201612158

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Philosophical Response To Plagiarism Teaching Philosophy 2016 DOI 10.5840 Teachphil201612158

Similar to A Philosophical Response To Plagiarism Teaching Philosophy 2016 DOI 10.5840 Teachphil201612158 (10)

More from Steven Wallach

More from Steven Wallach (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Philosophical Response To Plagiarism Teaching Philosophy 2016 DOI 10.5840 Teachphil201612158