Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 1

Alyssa Millwood-Donahue and Liyah Lopez

Medina

CTW 1

19 September 2017

Present Day Plagiarism

In the article, Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty, Rebecca

Moore Howard emphasizes the idea that universities must revise policies regarding plagiarism in

order to enhance the learning process for students. Howard believes that plagiarism is not black

and white, but rather the idea that various types of plagiarism exist, such as cheating, non-

attribution, and patchwriting. Although some students plagiarize on purpose, the author believes

that others, in fact many others, may plagiarize due to an ignorance of citation conventions

(788). This lack of knowledge most often applies to students who patchwrite, or rephrase the

authors words using very similar word choice and sentence structure. Yet, despite the intentions,

the majority of universities punish all plagiarism the same way: suspension or expulsion. Howard

emphasizes the idea that ignorance can lead to drastic consequences and even an end to ones

education experience.

Howard continues to note that patchwriting is an aspect of learning- students are only

rephrasing anothers work because it is difficult for themselves to understand. Through

rephrasing, students can make sense of the text, yet most students stop there instead of

continuing to work with the text and putting it into their own unique words/sentence structure.

Therefore, universities must educate students on proper citations, whether this be explaining how

to avoid patchwriting all together by putting difficult text into his/her own words, or by

explaining how to properly cite other authors when using his/her language and ideas.
 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 2

Howard furthers her claim of the benefits of plagiarism through the example of Martin

Luther King, Jr.s use of Voice Merging. Voice merging is defined as the African-American

folk preaching tradition of patching together unattributed words, phrases, and even extended

passages from theological sources(792). Voice merging is utilized by speakers in order to

connect to their audience and draw instances of recognition to connect the speaker and/or

authors message. In the case of King, Howard emphasizes the idea that through voice merging,

King is not plagiarizing to come by a cheap alternative to originality but rather utilizing it to

convey relation with his audience. Howard uses the example of King in order to convince the

reader that even some of the greatest speakers in history pull inspiration from other sources, We

carry the practices and conventions of one community into another, as King did by engaging in

African-American voice merging when composing his academic and political prose.(793)

The idea of pulling ideas from other sources in order to develop a stronger and more

persuasive piece allows Howard to introduce a broader topic as to whether any idea is solely

developed by an individual. Howard argues that writing ...might be more accurate to think of

creativity, of fresh combinations made from existing sources (798) and explains that no

ones ideas are solely their own, their developments of other concepts which arent original

themselves. Howard goes on to use a quote by Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede to further develop

her claim, ...all writing is in an important sense collaborative and that common knowledge Commented [1]: I don't like how I worded this

varies from community to community and is collaboratively shared. (796) Although, common

knowledge is not technically considered plagiarism, Howards usage of Lunsford and Edes

quote furthers her claim that no ones ideas are exclusively their own. Individual ideas are

formed and influenced by varying factors broadening the question as to whether there is such a

thing as originality.
 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 3

In explaining the benefits of plagiarism considering its learning potential, Howard makes

an effort to differentiate the different forms of plagiarism: cheating, non-attributing, and

patchwriting. The differences in each form allow Howard to explain when plagiarism is okay as

well as the academic value of each. Howard labels them in order from least to most academically

beneficial. Howard goes on to emphasize the idea that the effectiveness of plagiarism as an

educational tool is reflected by the purity of intention. If a student uses plagiarism to get out of

doing work, they will not reap the benefits. However, if they are plagiarizing to better understand

a topic during the stage of incompetence, Howard claims they may develop a better

comprehension. (801)

Howard emphasizes the fact that colleges must revise plagiarism policies. With current

punishment standards, students cannot learn from accidental plagiarism. Howard does not deny

the fact that students must be punished for purposely taking anothers work without proper

citations, which is most often the case with non-attribution and cheating. However, by punishing

students for patchwriting, universities are missing an opportunity to educate students and further

their education. Universities should be educating students on plagiarism conventions to help

students make maximum intellectual use [patchwriting] and then move beyond it (796).

Professors must show students that they must move past the step of rephrasing in order to avoid

plagiarism consequences.

Overall, Howard displays through her essay, Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the

Academic Death Penalty, the significance of plagiarism as an educational tool and calls for

teachers, professors, and institutions to reevaluate their policies. Howard suggests that through

varying approaches, plagiarism can work in a students favor rather than the system of cheating it
 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 4

is typically viewed as. Plagiarism policies should focus on the academic growth of students

instead of condemning potentially positive resources.