Bedeviling. Lawyer´s English & Supreme Court plagiarism
Frank A. Hilario
November 14, 2010
And I´m crazier still because less intelligence and more reckless imprudence describe the educators´ reactions to the ruling of the Supreme Court on the charge of plagiarism on one of its justices, Mariano Del Castillo (you may want to read my earlier essay, "The Boors of Plagiarism. The Lord of the Files," 13 November 2010, Radical Plagiarism, Blogspot). More to the point, the plagiarism reactions have revealed to me about the nature of the Lawyer´s English in the Philippines. And so, as a writer and an editor and English activist, I can say that it´s a nightmare-case scenario, for 2 reasons:
(1) The lawyers are bedeviling the Supreme Court.
(2) The lawyers´ English is bedeviling me.
If I were in the United States, I could make a federal case out of it. But since I´m in the Philippines, let me just get down to the cases.
Did you see the paid-for (advertised) position papers of those who strongly oppose the Supreme Court´s stand on plagiarism? Half a page for COCOPEA, half a page for CEAP. I didn´t read them, but I didn´t have to. I have verbatim copies of those sent by email, and they give me a bad case of English jitters.
Just in case, I don´t want a case of the blind leading the blind, and I think I can build a case against the published positions of those groups or related ones. And no, I don´t have to taste all the fruits to know that the whole basket of tomatoes is rotten.
Now then, as a writer, I know that the introductory paragraph is the most crucial part of any piece of expository writing, even a "mere" letter: it either makes the most important point of the whole exercise, or it excites you to find out how far this one goes - in both cases, you will want to read more.
So, I am looking at the opening paragraphs of the published anti-Supreme Court statements of 3 groups, and I find a bad case of English target practice – the target is the Supreme Court, and the practice is shooting.
This is the opening paragraph of the position paper from the De La Salle College of Law:
Our job as legal educators is to shape lawyers, not fixers. That is why we take plagiarism and other forms of cheating very seriously. We do not want intellectually dishonest lawyers because we know easily they can succumb to graver forms of corruption. But all our efforts will be in vain if the highest court tolerates the practice.
The lawyer´s English shoots from the hip, without warning. There is no caveat, no introductory statement. Don´t they know that you cannot build a case by starting with the assumption that there is a case?
This opening paragraph is from the Catholic Education Association of the Philippines (CEAP):
As technology continues to make information highly available and accessible, the problem of plagiarism within the academic community and beyond has become even more menacing. Virtually all academic institutions view it not only as a serious offense but also as a threat to intellectual creativity and advancement. The use of another person´s work without proper attribution is dealt with severely after due process, by imposing sanction on erring members of the academe found guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
The non-lawyer´s English is a slap on the face of the Supreme Court even before it has built a case against this august body. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
And this opening paragraph is from the COCOPEA:
The Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA), with due respect, takes exception to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case entitled "In the matter of the charges of plagiarism, etc against Associate Justice Mariano C del Castillo." As educators, we are alarmed by the Supreme Court ruling that plagiarism cannot be committed without "malicious intent". How can we now discipline our students who copy the works and writings of other authors without attribution when they can simply take refuge behind the Supreme Court ruling? Plagiarism is intellectual dishonesty. It is thievery of intellectual property.
This non-lawyer´s English forgets that circumstances alter cases. I forgive the members of this group because that is "one of the most ancient legal principles" (gospelhour.net), and COCOPEA is not yet that old, although its non-sequitur is quite prehistoric. It does not follow that if A happens, B happens.
More about the DLSU lawyer´s deposition:
As an editor, I can say that the introductory paragraph I quoted above, like a photograph that has been cropped too much, it has no foreground, so you can´t tell where it is, with what it relates to. The first sentence / declaration is too strong and ends too abruptly, and so "our job … is to shape lawyers" does not really mean anything, sorry to say. How do legal educators shape young minds to become lawyers? I´d like to know. It´s that important.
Then, since the first sentence mentions lawyers in the same breath as fixers, this implies that if you fail to "shape" someone as a lawyer, he becomes a fixer. A limited view. Or, it implies that some law schools other than this one produce fixers, not lawyers. A limited perspective.
Considering the first and second sentences together, it implies that avoidance of plagiarism and other forms of cheating is what occupies DLSU legal educators. They must have better use of their time than this!
More about the CEAP non-lawyer´s position:
The whole paragraph completely ignores the Supreme Court´s considered position on the matter of plagiarism. In asserting that academic institutions view plagiarism not only as "a serious offense but also as a threat to intellectual creativity and advance," it makes the Supreme Court look like an ignoramus. What is the Supreme Court´s position on this? You don´t know – because the CEAP position paper completely ignores it.
More about the COCOPEA´s non-lawyer position:
This is the best-reasoned position paper of the 3 groups, acknowledging properly and cogently the Supreme Court´s stand: "that plagiarism cannot be committed without ´malicious intent.´" I think I know the reason why they are averse to the Supreme Court´s stand on plagiarism: It becomes the duty of the educators to show "malicious intent" in any plagiarism case, and they hate the prospects of it. It is not that the Supreme Court is wrong in its judgment of plagiarism – it is that the academic job of watching out for plagiarism has become more difficult.
In sum, I think it´s not about lawyers and fixers and plagiarists. It´s all about education and lawyering.
I have come to believe that if, as our National Hero Jose Rizal said, the youth is the beautiful hope of the fatherland, then education is the beautiful hope of the youth in transforming themselves into what best they can be as the fatherland needs. I´m an educator by training, that is why I´m interested in education. So, from one educator to another, I have this to say:
(1) Do not teach against English; rather, teach about understanding.
(2) Do not teach against plagiarism; rather, teach about being original.
(3) Do not teach by the book; rather, teach by discussion. Not debate, where there are only 2 sides.
(4) Do not teach memory work; rather, teach by immersion.
(5) Do not teach by threatening failure; rather, teach by encouraging success, learning from others.
I rest my case.
Print
Email
