Plagiarism: soft-center Raskol'nikovs vs. hard-nut P. Verkhovenkiis

[Helena Goscilo]

Regarding the dialogue from two corners on forestalling, detecting,
reporting, and penalizing the criminal: the utopian scenario proposed by
Andrew casts us as Porfirii Petrovich and the student as a Raskol'nikov in
waiting, both nurturing faith in the power and efficacy of confession.
Jerry's version would mean that someone with a class of 150 students, say,
would spend more time on prophylactic proverki a deux than s/he would
in the classroom actually teaching the class.  Gor'kii opyt in one of the
academic crime centers in the U.S., it seems (and our pseudo-Gothic
Cathedral of Learning should be an ideal stage setting for both Catholic
and protesting confessions), richly documents the dispiriting fact that
most plagiarists, even when confronted with what strikes any sensible
person as indisputable evidence, opt for the Verkhovenskian cynical (often
accusatory) denial.  David's and Tony's suggestions are more congruent
with lived experience, at least at the Univ. of Pgh. and many other
universities where colleagues have undergone their C & P galgothas and
lived to tell the story.  To my knowledge, most universities fear
litigation and therefore proceed with extreme "caution" in hearing cases
of plagiarism.  In everyday translation, that means they insist that
professors follow Byzantine procedures (cf. Tony's message) in thoroughly
documenting the obvious, and even then often do not follow through on
penalties spelled out in the offical rules legislating "integrity."
Some may read this attitude as Grushen'ka's onion; I'd call it the Art of
Avoidance.
Helena Goscilo