Earlier we were discussing an article on plagiarism by Stanley Fish. After listening to everyone and analyzing some of those points I came up with a few points of my own. So during the free style writing exercise I couldn't help but write about those fresh ideas.
In his article, Fish provides contradicting ideas and tries to support both of them. He stresses that there is nothing immoral about plagiarism and is only a matter of discipline. But at the end, he slams his colleagues for plagiarizing his work by implying that they stole something that wasn't their. That means he felt that they stole from him and stealing is definitely immoral in most people's mind. And if not, if your actions have consequences more than just disciplinary actions, in this case, Fish feeling victim of theft, it definitely becomes a moral issue. So he can't argue that it is not a moral issue and also feel victimized.
He also claims that student's don't understand the concept of plagiarism. I think most students are more certain and less confused about plagiarism than Fish himself. It is not that it's hard for us to understand plagiarism but it is just another short cut for for students to get their work done on time and with little stress. His whole approach is aggressive and is derived by anger over his colleagues, which probably tempered his logic and credibility to analyze a critical but simple issue such as plagiarism.
