Plagiarism and cheating are prevalent in business, journalism and academia. An article in today’s New York Times, by the Public Editor Clark Hoyt, described how Zachery Kouwe, a reporter, was fired last week because he lifted material from the Wall Street Journal without appropriate attribution. This is reminiscent of what I encounter as a teacher. In one class, I read a student’s essay. Midway through the paper, I thought that this student was an incredibly gifted writer. However, by the end of the piece, I realized that the material wasn’t his work. I googled a prominent phrase, and sure enough, the identical article popped-up on a Microsoft web-site.
With the prevalence of cut and past technology, it is easy to copy other peoples’ work. Generally, there is nothing wrong with cutting and pasting as long as the author appropriately references the original sources. In the New York Times article Kouwe’s acts were described as the equivalent of “shoplifting gum,” as opposed to, say, shoplifting “color TVs. “ By copying the entire article, my student shoplifted the entire color TV!
Ironically, Kouwe was writing about Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Kouwe and my student were as mindful in ripping-off their sources of material as Madoff was in swindling his investors. When one mindfully cheats others, one is acting unethically. It is the responsibility of leaders in business, academia and journalism to take corrective action when the people whom they lead cheat others. In the absence of this moral leadership, societal relationships break down.
I think this problem stems partially from our highly competitive “results-based” society. Many students and journalists (and other professionals and workers, I’m sure) want the glory and recognition of having received the A or published the highly informative article, etc. They are less concerned with the process that produces the desired result. When you bring home that A, mom and dad rarely ask about the work and studying and paper-writing that you had to do to get it in the first place. This focus on results leads to a host of dubious behaviors, often including forsaking academic honesty in order to write something that the professor doing the grading might agree with politically and reward with a high mark.
I’m not sure what the solution to this problem is, however. I think grades are a necessary motivator, and in the case of the New York Times, we as readers rightfully demand well-researched and thorough stories. It is also very hard to teach morals/ethics. Sure, we can try to put more emphasis on morals and ethics in our schools, but there will always be those students who are willing to cheat in order to do well.
Your comments that we often place too great an emphasis on results is a valid one. The process used to achieve the results is equally important. The philosopher Dewey suggested that means and ends exist in a continuum. If you focus only on the ends, sometimes, you may never achieve them. The means used–to achieve the ends–has an impact. “The ends in view are not necessarily the ends you choose.”
According to the NYTimes article, the reporter Kouwe cut and pasted material from a variety of authors into a data base, and ended-up co-mingling materials from different sources. Possibly, the use of a “flawed process” is one of the reasons that contributed to his demise.
The notion that the means are as important the ends is embodied in the philosophy of continuous improvement as described in the book “Kaizen: The Key To Japan’s Competitive Success” by Masaaki Imai Using this philosophy, one places equal importance on how that “A” is obtained, or, in the case of the New York Times, the process used for writing articles. In organizations that practice the continuous improvement philosophy, employees are rewarded for following the process steps, not just getting the results. Thanks for your feedback.