Many years ago, I read an article about how to stop students from plagiarizing. All colleges prohibit plagiarism, with various penalties. They say things like, “academic integrity matters, so do your own work, unless the assignment involves collaboration.” As I recall it, the author of the article validated my thinking, with several suggestions. His main point was that merely prohibiting plagiarism would not work. He advised teachers to set up conditions under which there would be no advantage to cheating. To me, a ban without a plan seems pointless. Some students will always find a way, unless there is no reason to cheat.
I tried to write clear instructions that made it very difficult to just copy and paste to complete the assignment. I wanted to know what my students were thinking and how well they had understood the information, not what other people thought or what the “correct answers” were. So, I provided options for demonstrating knowledge – a choice of assignments, topics, and approaches. Also, a choice of due dates and opportunities to re-take quizzes. In addition, I tried to be a fair evaluator, realizing that there was more than one interpretation to some questions and that students are not all the same. In short, I believed if I could minimize the incentives for cheating, I could foster academic honesty. No doubt my approach was not 100% effective, but I’m confident my carrot was better than the university’s stick.
Between 1920 and 1933, the US attempted to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The short story about this period is that prohibition didn’t work. People found numerous ways to circumvent the law. Those who wanted to drink found ways to do as they wished, regardless of law enforcement. Criminals made fortunes and massacred their rivals. Thousands of people died from drinking contaminated alcohol. In the end, we learned that education is a much better tool than a constitutional ban. It seems to me, if we really want people to stop abusing a substance, perhaps we need to understand what motivates them to use it in the first place and take steps to encourage alternative behavior.
Some people want to ban firearms. Yet, those who really want to obtain guns will find ways to get around a ban. Anything prohibited by law can be purchased on the black market. And for many people, especially the wealthy, the law is only a suggestion. If we want to end certain behaviors, we need to do more than make a court ruling or pass a law. We must address whatever encourages the behavior.
If anyone thinks overturning Roe v. Wade will end abortions in the US, they need to think again. Some women will be able to avoid abortion restrictions and others will take life-threatening risks. Further, if anyone believes supporting the end of Roe makes them “pro-life,” they are mistaken. If we are truly pro-life, we must find ways to provide children with a pro-life environment – including prenatal care, medical coverage, life insurance, parental leave, counseling, adoption services, adequate wages, reasonable working hours, paid vacations, financial assistance, nutritional assistance, childcare, pre-k and kindergarten, public education, and so on. And if we want fewer abortions, we ought to hold men accountable, both legally and financially. If we want to promote life, we need to change the culture, otherwise prohibitions will not work.
MurrayWorks 