Is it ethical for a student to submit the same paper in two college classes? That was the question posed to the Ethicist in last Sunday's Times Magazine. His answer, in brief, was yes. It may be lazy, he concluded, but it's not unethical.
The Ethicist, also known as Chuck Klosterman, wrote: “I don't think this is cheating. I wouldn't say it qualifies as ‘genius,' and it might get you expelled from some universities. Yet I can't isolate anything about this practice that harms other people, provides you with an unfair advantage or engenders an unjustified reward.â€
A number of readers were quick to object. Michael J. Murray, an assistant professor at the University of Houston, described himself as “deeply disappointed and somewhat offended.†He said that at his university, this would be seen as a form of plagiarism, and certainly as academic dishonesty.
Another reader, Sandra Wilde of the City University of New York, suggested that by any measure - university rules or the common-sense use of one's conscience - Mr. Klosterman was off base.
“I often think he gets it wrong, but today's column crosses a line,†she wrote. “Academic integrity is an explicit set of expectations that provide ground rules for those at universities. A good rule for judging the ethics of your own behavior is whether you'd admit to it upfront, not whether you can do it well enough to get away with it.â€
I asked Mr. Klosterman to explain his thinking beyond what he said in the column and to respond to the critics. He wrote:
I understand people's response to this, and it's not an unreasonable argument to make. But my opinion remains (essentially) identical to what I first wrote. Many of the people responding to this column are working from the position that this is unethical because it goes against whatever the university policy or honor code specifies. However, those specific policies don't factor into this determination. The honor code at Brigham Young University outlaws homosexual behavior - does this mean having a homosexual relationship at B.Y.U. is unethical, simply because a rule exists? Does it mean that it's not unethical to have a homosexual relationship at Utah State, but it somehow IS unethical the moment you transfer to Provo? There is a difference between something being unethical in a natural sense and something being unethical because an arbitrary ethics policy states that this is the case. I don't care what the University of Houston has decreed. Moreover, would the writer of that letter agree with my response if - for whatever reason - the University of Houston suddenly amended their policy? I don't think he/she would. This kind of contradiction happens all the time with this column. Legislation does not define ethical behavior. For example (as one commenter noted), it's illegal for a United States citizen to visit Cuba - but it's not remotely unethical. It's unlawful to drive 56 mph on a deserted state highway, but it's clearly not an unethical practice. This column is not titled “How to Avoid Jail†or “Is This Sanctioned?†It Is about how things ought to be - considered in a vacuum, but applied to practical living.
Many readers who write to me about the Ethicist - and I hear a lot of complaints, as does Mr. Klosterman - challenge his credentials. For example, Thomas D. Harter of La Crosse, Wis., objects to Mr. Klosterman's lack of credentials in ethics, a field in which Mr. Harter has expertise. “To allow him to dole out ‘advice' under this false designation is a shame, and, ironically, unethical,†he wrote.
I asked Mr. Klosterman about that, as well. He readily admits that he has no such degree and says that he finds the question a little bizarre.
As for what my “credentials†for this job are … that's always a strange question. The idea that I would need a degree in ethics to do this job is extremely strange. Is the assumption that all the film critics for The New York Times have film degrees? Do all the music critics have degrees in musicology? Would The Times not hire a business reporter because she didn't have a J-school degree and an entrepreneurial background? You're the public editor, and you seem good at your job - but do you have a degree in public policy? Perhaps you do, but I don't see how that would be essential. The wonderful thing about the Ethicist position is that no one is truly qualified and everyone is partly qualified. The experience of living, the experience of considering life's problems, the ongoing experience of trying to place an objective reality into an inherently subjective world - these are as close to “credentials†as I possess. It's the same reason this column gene rates so much response: It's not distant from anyone's life. When someone asks, “Well, what are your credentials for this position?†it's no different than if I responded to that question by saying, “Well, what are your credentials for asking that question?†Neither sentiment is meaningful. I'm not claiming to be more ethical than other people. I'm just a guy considering problems. (And if it matters, I have a degree in journalism.)
I asked him to elaborate on his background, and he wrote:
I grew up on a farm outside of Wyndmere, N.D. (very small town, fewer than 500 people). My dad was a farmer and my mom taught in a one-room schoolhouse before becoming a housewife. I have four sisters and two brothers (I'm the youngest of seven). I went to the University of North Dakota and graduated with a communications degree in 1994. I worked at the newspaper in Fargo (The Forum) from 1994 to 1998, covering popular culture. I then worked for The Akron Beacon Journal from 1998 to 2002 (initially as a pop culture reporter, then as the film critic, then as the music critic). My first book came out in 2001. Spin magazine hired me in May 2002, and I moved to New York. I was a columnist for Esquire for four years (roughly 2004 to 2008). I taught American Studies at the University of Leipzig in Germany during the summer of '08. I am currently a consultant and writer for Grantland, as well as having the job at The Times. My eighth book comes out this July.
Here's my take: Mr. Klosterman's column is always an interesting read in The Times. It's thought provoking, it often challenges conventional wisdom, and I'm sure it ignites conversations and arguments everywhere. (At last count, there were nearly 400 comments on the “two papers†column.) That's all good.
But calling him “the Ethicist,†with no other explanation, certainly does imply that he has some special expertise.
Granted, renaming the column “Just a Guy Considering Problems†is probably not quite catchy enough. But, as usual, I think transparency with the reader points the way. Some explanation each week - even a single line, in a light tone - of who Mr. Klosterman is and the intentions of the column would help readers know that this isn't the word from Mount Olympus. Nor is it intended to be. It's just one man's opinion.
