For Monday, Oct. 11:
Please read Mark Clayton's piece, "A Whole Lot of Cheatin' Going On," in Presence (pg. 198) and join the debate.
Respond with your opinion and cite a fact Clayton brings up in his article.
The question we'll debate is this: Should LSC's student newspaper, The Critic, publish stories naming students who are disciplined for academic dishonesty at Lyndon State?
I'll go first:
Yes, The Critic should publish the names of cheaters. Academic dishonesty is the collegiate version of fraud. Our daily newspaper, the Caledonian-Record, frequently runs stories about people convicted of fraud. Publication serves two purposes: it informs readers about a matter of great public interest (crime), and it acts as a deterrent by letting potential fraudsters know they'll be shamed in public if they are caught. Publishing the names of academic cheaters would serve similar purposes. As Clayton points out (pg. 201), the student newspaper at the University of Southern California covers cheating cases. The Critic should, too.
Your turn!
The Critic should absolutely not post the names of those who have cheated in the paper. In high school i was falsely accused of cheating. after that, it felt as if all of my teachers were watching me more closely and it made me feel terrible. if that were to happen at LSC i would be devastated. i am not at all saying that cheating is ok, it is wrong and should not happen. but if a student cheats it should be between the professor of that class and the student, not between the professor, student, staff, faculty and every student that attends LSC. if a student did something in the school that could effect the safety of others, then it should be published so that the students and faculty can be aware of the situation and be able to protect themselves if needed. if a student were to cheat, it would in no way effect any other student, therefore making it completely unnecessary to publish in the paper. the only way it would be OK to have students who have cheated published in the paper, is if the student had a section right next to it where they could explain why they did it, and how they feel about it now.
ReplyDeleteThe Critic should not put any names in the paper. I feel the person who cheated has to live with the consequences. The names of students should not be published. If someone would like to know what happened to that person there is other ways beside the newspaper. Yes many papers publish crimes that happen in the local area. The Critic should only publish if there is a big crime a student commits on campus. I feel that cheating is not a big crime and everyone seems to have done it.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with publishing the names of cheaters in the critc. I dont understand what this would do, besides make the problem worse. If you do get caught cheating, im sure your punishment would be harsh enough. I do not believe in embarassing people, for their mistakes. Like the piece says on page 199, about 80 percent of people that took a survey admitted to cheating. If that many people are cheating, then there has to be something wrong. Maybe these days its too easy to cheat due to the internet, and its not like we can limit the amount of information on the internet. Also going back to, maybe people will stop if they see others getting in trouble. Its never going to stop, because people will always fin ways around the system. Why punish the person that got caught, when all of the other 90 percent of students are doing it as well? cheating is a reacurring problem, that we will never see ended, no matter how many people the critic embarasses.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think that the Critic should put any names in the paper. My biggest reason why is because when somebody is put on the spot like that nothing good comes out of it. Yeah they might learn their lesson, but I dont feel that it will be like that for most. Doing wrong and knowing you did wrong should be enough. Just give the student a zero on the paper and call it enough. In paragraph four of Mark Clayton's "A Whole lot of Cheatin' Going On" Mr. Smolik of the University of Texas says "Cheating is the answer, It might not be a good answer, but none the less it is an answer." I had to read this a few times for this to make sence but I still have had it come across the same way. Yes cheating is an answer and its not a good one. Five is an answer to "2+2", but its not the right one. This is not a shady area at all. If you have cheated you have cheated. As I said eariler, I think getting a zero on the paper is bad enough. Putting names in the paper is also an answer, but also one of those "2+2=5" answers. Its wrong to do, people will not want to be exposed to the campus and nothing will be solved by doing. If anything I feel it will make things worse.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to jump in again and ask this: What purpose is served by keeping the cheating a secret? Doesn't that leave the impression that cheating never happens? Or worse, it leaves the impression that there is no punishment for cheating. Clayton points out that the University of Virginia has only one punishment for cheating: expulsion. That sounds pretty draconian, but Clayton also notes there were only 11 cases in the previous semester. Maybe it works. Maybe the reason 80 percent of "Who's Who" students admit to cheating -- according to Clayton -- is that there's no accountability. Maybe if they knew their names would appear in print, they would think twice.
ReplyDeleteNo,I find the idea of posting the list of all of the cheaters in the critic wrong. There should not be a list for all of Lyndon State College to read. If you were to post something in the critic that was wrong then you would have to post all of the things that people do wrong. I dont think that cheating is okay, or correct. I feel like the students will only get smarter at cheating the more that you exploit them in a public mannor. I feel like knowing that they would get expelled is enough to stop someone who really cares. That is a lot of money to lose for only one choice, and being expelled from one college for cheating will follow you to where ever else you may try to apply.
ReplyDeleteNo, the critic definitely should not post names of the students who cheated in the paper. When you do something like that, it only makes the situation worse than what it is. Exposing who the students are only embarrasses them. They should just have to live with what they did and make better choices in the long run, rather than be exposed. Everyone knows that there is cheating at all levels of school. The point in trying to make this a huge deal is really pointless. It is not a new topic of issue and there is more ways and more harsh ways to punish someone who cheats. Listing names is just one of the bad ways to do it.
ReplyDeleteIn class i had said that no the Critic should not list names, but now that i think about it. I think that it should. It needs to be shown to students the consequences and embarrassment of cheating to stave kids from doing it. In fact i think that all teachers who receive papers from students should google it just to make sure it is not plagiarized. Cheating is very dishonest, and you won't learn anything by doing it. If you cheat then you get the hammer. Ans by that consequences should be drastic for it. Laziness or having a hard time with the work is no reason to cheat. As those two reasons are the ope ones for cheating. It's wrong, so the people who do it should be an example of.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the critic should put the names in the paper. Everyone know that cheating is not an acceptable thing. It is someones choice to cheat if they want to. When they get caught, they know the consequences for it. The consequences that they served are bad enough, why make it so that everyone who reads the critic knows about these people. It not their business to know who is making judgmental mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and not everyone needs to know about them.
ReplyDelete