Academic Integrity

Once upon a time, I wrote a lot of recommendation letters for my students’ college applications. There were often forms to fill out, and all of them had some version of a question about academic integrity or intellectual honesty. In other words, did the kid ever cheat in your class? That honesty and integrity was perhaps more important than all the grades, test scores, college essays, and yes, recommendation letters.

I was at the height of my public high school teaching career when searching the internet became a thing – a gift/curse for savvy students. I remember the first time I “exact word” googled a sentence to check the authenticity of one of my star student’s work. Sure enough, this person had copy/pasted from some website without citing their source. It was so prevalent a practice that I started studying the myriad manifestations of plagiarism. In fact, a colleague and I created a presentation on internet plagiarism that we gave at a couple of teacher conferences.

I eventually understood that different cultures have different ideas of academic integrity. Groupthink, or helping each other, is more acceptable outside the US. And then there’s Isaac Newton’s phrase, “If I have seen farther than others it is because I’ve stood on the shoulders of giants.” In fact, a library research paper is often just stringing together a series of other people’s quotes. The important part is how one does the stringing, rather, how information or knowledge passes through the sieve of one’s own mind – and always citing one’s sources.

One result of my attention to plagiarism was creating assignments that were somewhat resistant to copy/pasting. “A Tale of Two Cities” was a generic Social Studies assignment to compare and contrast two relatively randomly selected cities from around the world. It was designed to generate originality. But that was then, and artificial intelligence is now, and originality – along with academic integrity – may be a thing of the past?

For now, I’m holding on to my AI virginity. I have yet to use ChatGPT for anything. It’s a threshold I hesitate to cross, valuing what’s left of my unaugmented imagination. Of course, I’m forced to use AI in other ways, as it endeavors to finish my sentences – and I often let it (but not here). Perhaps I’ll appreciate the help as I embark upon my dotage? Or, without such out of the Pandora’s box thinking, my unaided ruminations may be puerile/futile? Teaching-wise, at least I am retired…

I shudder to think how AI will impact education, how teachers will be able to ensure academic integrity, intellectual honesty, or ever be able to evaluate originality, creativity, vision. Sure, oral defenses and the exclusive use of pencil & paper tests might encourage actual human learning? But that might happen only if student/teacher ratios are lessened – or if robots replace the teachers and their algorithms can accurately detect unaided human knowledge?

Once upon another time, teachers worried about literacy! If writing replaced memorization, books (especially printed ones) would replace the human mind. And recently, rote memorization has been much vilified. As if one could think without content? (Can there be RAM without ROM or vice versa?) Unfortunately, or otherwise, ChatGPT (AI in general) changes everything again. Yet, this massive paradigm shift may be short, as biochips, neuralinks, or other brain/computer interfaces make human education as we know it, unnecessary and irrelevant. 

Worse, those of us concerned with academic integrity or the encroachment of artificial intelligence into the realm of human understanding have already lost to something far more insidious than machine learning – the kids versus the bots. Ignorance has won over academia. Stupidity has triumphed over education – at least in the American electorate. Whether it be intellect or honesty, the masses (albeit a slim majority) prefer neither to their inquiet desperation.

Ah Bartleby, ah inhumanity

Ambiguity Tolerance

Truth is, at best, elusive. It is “a hard deer to hunt” (from By the Waters of Babylon by Stephen Vincent Benét). And any ol’ body’s personal truth is not “the truth”! It’s just their truth. “Just being honest” does not carry the gravitas of actual reality, of deep understanding, or of any kind of universal truth! Question your truths! Question authority – and question other people’s truths. But if you have found one, even a little bit of truth, understand its opposite, and cherish them both. 

When I used to teach AP English Language and Composition, there was usually an essay question that began: “Defend, challenge, or qualify.” I would always encourage students to “qualify.” Why? Because it gives one the opportunity to defend AND challenge. To agree AND disagree. To truly show one’s thinking about both sides of an issue. To find both truths! And it meant they were gonna have a lot more to write. (Always an opportunity in AP essays!)

The other reason to qualify is balance – and that is the more jurisprudential position in any argument. Show your qualifications! The person who can take both sides, honestly, is usually considered the more rational, the more reasonable, the one with more equanimity, or better, equipoise. Further, is there not more gamesmanship in truly showing an understanding of your opponent’s argument (then countering it) than artfully delivering your own. (Don’t just “Stand and Deliver” – understand and redefine!)

Nowadays, we hear much about bipolarity, psychologically and politically. In fact, bipolarity (or multipolarity [non-sequitor?]) is a strength. It allows one to walk on both sides of the aisle (or of an issue), to see the yin and the yang, the left and the right, the dark and the light. But my point here is not simply about fundamental dualism, it is about big picture thinking. Box avoidance! And the magnanimity to indulge in contrary notions, divergent ideas, and to love paradoxes! Perhaps, only in a paradox can one find an actual truth? 

Further, when one adopts radical ambiguity tolerance, the love of the paradox, one can truly open up to possible realities more compelling than any particular ideology, specific culture, or current zeitgeist. Better, that perspective requires humility, it shuns all dogmatism, and it opens the mind to lateral thinking. Rather than the defeat of judgment, ambiguity tolerance allows both sides to win – in their way – without claiming absolute victory.

If more people lived their lives with ambiguity tolerance, there might be fewer arguments, less polarized politics, more interesting conversations, and many opportunities for finding common ground. Society might be better lubricated with reason, and individuals might be more curious about all kinds of things. More question marks! Fewer exclamation points? 

What do you think?