The latest plagiarism tempest
I'm really surprised at Theresa Nielsen Hayden's argument for some legitimacy to the arguments in defense of a case of plagiarism. OK, she's not granting him clemency, but she thinks he has a point (and Kieran Healy disagrees). I don't think he has a leg to stand on.
One argument is that the rules against plagiarism are buried in boring student handbooks. You know, though, I've never read any of the legal documents that say theft is a crime, and I suspect that they are far more longwinded, boring, tedious, etc., than student handbooks. I still know that I shouldn't steal. Students know plagiarism is wrong, copying on exams is wrong, cheating in general is wrong. You simply can't seriously argue that students don't know this simple rule.
Another argument is that since the student had gotten away with this for years, the university should be ashamed of itself and can't punish the little weasel for past infractions, only the one it currently caught him on. If I spent the last three years knocking over gas stations ("but officer, I didn't know it was a crime! The legal code was too boring to read!"), and finally got caught this week, I should certainly think it entirely justifiable to prosecute me for all my prior crimes. That the police failed to catch me before doesn't mean those robberies were OK.
And I'm afraid her closing comment is just a personal peeve, one that really burns me up:
I’m all for taking him at his word. Reinstate him as a student at the University, give him three years’ free tuition, and let him re-do all that coursework he says he cheated on. He’s paid for that education. It’s only fair to see that he finally gets it.
Grrrr. I've had students tell me I need to drop everything and help them with something right now because, they say, they are paying my salary. I've had students complain that because they've paid tuition they deserve to pass my course.
Education doesn't work that way. You don't get to buy your degree, unless you are Kent Hovind. This student has thrown away his opportunity to learn for the past few years; the university and his instructors are under no obligation to subsidize student stupidity, laziness, or dishonesty.


Well, yeah, he paid -- he got an education he didn't realize he had bargained for. Why let him do it again? Is he now alleging he might learn something different?
It was an expensive lesson he learned, if he learned it. But it was also a lesson of great value, if he learned it.