Pass the Blame

In that rhetoric calls for a dialogical approach, it is most appropriate to provide both an encomium and an invective to the subject.



Rhetoric, in itself, is the most useful tool within the human tool belt. It is used, both effectively and ineffectively, by everyone who is capable of communicating on this planet, from describing in detail how the dog ate the homework assignment to arguing political or ethical issues we see on a daily basis. Rhetoric is most difficult to define because it has so many facets and uses within a language. It can provide a person with the capability, when used appropriately, to persuade another individual into agreeing with them on any subject. According to the dictionary provided by Princeton University (worldnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn), rhetoric is "using language effectively to please or persuade" or "study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)." However, this dictionary also provides two more definitions of an opposite outlook. Rhetoric can also be defined as "high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation" and "loud and confused and empty talk." In the same breath, I can easily praise rhetoric, and, for the same reasons, compose an negative invective. The fact that a person can effectively persuade another into believing most anything is where the largest problem with rhetoric lies. When individuals use empty language to persuade, as the sophists were accused of, they begin treading on very dangerous ground. The easiest and most common example to use is the speeches of Adolf Hitler. His best quality was his charisma and ability to convince the masses by telling them what they wanted to hear, an effective, though not always moral, form of rhetoric. Keep in mind that the most useful tool is often also the most dangerous.

Hey, Pass Me Your Answers!

PROLOGUE: Walk into any high school or college classroom during the first big exam, and you can be sure to find at least one student, though probably more than that, committing what we in the academic community call “academic dishonesty.” Sure, every institution has laws in place, but you would be surprised how little difference these make to the student.

CONTRARY: We have laws in this country for a reason, usually to protect. Academic dishonesty is not only unfair to the cheater, but also the honest student who spent six hours the night before reviewing her notes, as well as the student whose test is being copied. If a student feels that she is not capable of performing well on the test, perhaps she should contact her instructor in advance instead of resorting to such heinous methods.

EXPOSITION: Most of the time when a student cheats, it is not because the work is too difficult, or even that it takes a great deal of effort to study. America, on average, is very lazy, and with Facebook, television, and video games, the youth often wait until the last possible second to prepare for class the next day, which leaves them in quite a quandary. Fail the test, or employ some not-so-ethical strategies to get the grade. I’m sure you can figure out which one they usually choose.

COMPARISON: From drive-thrus at Sonic because waiting in your car just wasn’t fast enough to blaming others for their own actions, Americans are quick to take the easy road, and academics, unfortunately, does not escape this cultural paradigm.

INTENTION: Most of the time when students commit academic dishonesty, they are not thinking of the consequences or the atrocity of their actions. They simply want the easy way out, as they are taught from an early age.

DIGRESSION: If a student was refused aid from their instructor, perhaps they might have the right to cheat on a test. Honestly, though, how many times have you heard about the college professor who told the student to figure it out on their own? Personally, I never have. Teachers are paid to help their students, if only the students would not be too afraid or embarrassed or lazy to ask.

REJECTION OF PITY: Any student who has enough of a corrupted moral code to cheat will be quick to formulate a tragic sob-story good enough to win any professor over. Any professor, that is, who doesn’t know better. It’s a bit too late to crank up the waterworks once the professor has caught the student, and the professor must be sure not to soften or take pity upon the offender.

LEGALITY: Cheating and plagiarism are both illegal, especially in the university setting, but that stops very few students into refraining from it. Just as college students engage in underage drinking and other illegally reckless behavior,

JUSTICE: We, as a society, need to better enforce the academic dishonesty laws. For every student who is caught cheating, I would say that another five are getting away with it, and therefore will continue to do so in the future.

ADVANTAGE: As I mentioned earlier, cheating doesn’t only affect the cheater. If cheaters can be completely eliminated (good luck with that one) then students will be more motivated towards completing their work and preparing for tests, and the grading scale will be far more far. You shouldn’t be able to cheat your way into a good grade in a class under any circumstance.

POSSIBILITY: Everything is easier said than done, I’m afraid. Saying that you are going to better enforce academic dishonesty decrees and actually catching the students in the act are two different things. However, if both students and teachers take a step toward honesty, much can be done to prevent people cheating first in class and secondly in life.