• I do not use exams, thus all of my assignments are written essays. For first year students, I expect about 1500 words per essay (they do two per semester) and for my third year students, I expect between 1500 and 2000 words per essay (they do four per semester). Given the relative poor quality of the work, I gather that written assignments are comparatively uncommon in the Faculty overall, which puts students at a disadvantage when they happen upon a “writing intensive” course.
• My assignments are organized around course readings and do not expect secondary research on the part of students. Either I give them a passage to analyze (for my third years) or I leave the topic of the essay completely and absolutely open (for my first years). Given that I am fairly well-read in the literatures they are writing on–and given that I spend too much time reading blogs, a commonly plagiarized source–I’m well prepared to catch my students.
• Most teaching assistants in the faculty are either high performing undergraduates (the qualification to TA a course is to have received an A- or higher in the course) or Master’s students, the cost of whose tuition is offset by the performance of labour above and beyond their coursework. My colleagues who do assign written work likely “let” their teaching assistants do most of the marking. Given that undergraduates are not especially well-read in literatures (by definition), it is doubtful that they are in any position to catch plagiarism. Likewise, MA students are, in essence, undergraduate students doing a victory lap, which likewise makes them unprepared to catch plagiarism.
• It is also possible that when my colleagues do catch plagiarism they are–contrary to policy–more inclined to find ways to fail the paper or deal with the issue locally so as to avoid the odious paperwork that goes along with proving a case of plagiarism. It’s possible I’m unusually complete in my reports, but it generally takes me four or five hours per assignment to properly document the violation–how many people are willing to invest that much time?
• A very significant number of students make it to their third or fourth years–plagiarizing the whole time–but are never caught. This seems highly likely: most of the students I catch plagiarizing usually defend themselves (rather poorly) by saying something to the effect of “I’ve never been in trouble before” when three out of four of their assignments are clearly and painfully plagiarized. Given that they made it halfway through an undergraduate program more likely than not plagiarizing all the way, it stands to reason that they’ve never been caught in the first place or the situation was “dealt with” in a way that was not transparent to the student. More often than not, the students who do plagiarize receive mediocre grades on non-plagiarized assignments, which suggests (1) they shouldn’t be enrolled in a university program to begin with and (2) their plagiarism, if and when caught, was dealt with informally by just giving them a bad mark–which they are already accustomed to. (I give “bad marks” for bad work; a number of students will submit assignments that receive marks in the zero to fifteen percent range; i.e., not just a fail, but  super-fail.)

I have no idea how much I will contribute to this year’s statistics, but I’m well on my way towards being overrepresented, yet again. Of the 188 essays I have marked so far this semester (54 from my first year students, the remainder from my third year students), 7 of them are plagiarized. (Two assignments were very borderline and I decided to deal with them locally.) Chances are more (especially in the third year class) are plagiarized, but I missed them. Overall, the rate of plagiarism is 4%, which generally fits with my experience of roughly one in twenty assignments being suspicious.

I do not know how to fix the problem and I offer no solutions. But it is my impression that what is already a bad problem–looking at the official statistics–is actually much, much worse. But, overall, there are two general criticisms that can be made: universities are admitting students who have no business being in an university program and to accommodate for unprepared (or unpreparable) students, we shift more and more of our evaluation to exams and tests rather than written assignments, which we let unprepared teaching assistants mark. A related problem is the over-reliance on contract instructors, especially so-called “professionals” who want to benefit from the “prestige” of being able to say that they “teach at the university.” I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of my colleagues who are public servants, lawyers, NGO employees and so are well-intentioned, but, when you compare the work involved in plagiarism reports versus the pay, it just isn’t worth it and, by virtue of being contract, temporary workers, they are in no way invested in “the mission” of the university. (So far this semester, with seven plagiarized assignments that I’ve reported, I’ve spent between 28 and 35 unpaid hours doing the paperwork–perhaps the union could negotiate some sort of “reward” for each successful plagiarism report, but this would likely lead to the university becoming more lenient in the enforcement of the policy.)

For the record, every single allegation of plagiarism I have made has been upheld by the Dean.

Updated December 20.

Generally speaking, my students have all presented the following (as) facts:

1. Rule-breaking is a universal feature of human societies;
2. Punishment is the universal response to rule-breaking in human societies;
3. While the penalty must be “proportionate” to the offence, generally speaking, the harsher the penalty, the lower the rate of rule infraction;
4. However, regardless of how harsh the penalties are, rule-breaking continues at a greater or lesser rate.

To an extent, many of the students recognize that these “minor offences” have social causes of some sort: i.e., being non-white, being male, living in a city, and being poor. Nonetheless, these social causes are psychologized to the effect that even though they recognize that petty theft or dealing small amounts of drugs is caused socially (i.e., in a context of limited education, limited resources and, therefore, limited opportunities, the best option might be deal drugs), they nonetheless want to hold individuals responsible for their own social circumstances. The equivalent would be holding an infant responsible for being born with cancer–and then punishing the infant for having had the audacity of being born with cancer. My point is that they recognize the child is nonetheless not responsible for having cancer, but they want to punish the child all the same for having cancer because they are responsible for having cancer. Plainly, this does not make sense.

My replies to most of my students have been to take one of two (or both) approaches:

1. If punishment is a universal response to the equally universal rule-breaking and if rule-breaking persists despite punishment, why bother punishing at all? Either punishment is not about the offender and is about the punisher or people have recourse to punishment when it is plainly obvious it doesn’t work. Either way, punishment does not deter and, therefore, justifying punishment on the basis of deterrence is nonsense.
2. If the infractions under discussion–drug dealing/possession, minor theft, inconsequential street fights, unruly behaviour, etc–are attributable to social conditions, then isn’t the best response to address the underlying social conditions rather than holding black, urban, male youth responsible for being black, urban, male youth?

I’m curious to see how or if they respond to this line of argumentation, especially given that most of them are or have expressed interest in being “criminology” majors. I’m also curious to see what happens when they get to developmental psychology and social learning, if they’ll make any connection between positive reinforcement and positive outcomes.

But this doesn’t mean there aren’t drawbacks. More often than not, students are unengaged in the material, even when it is really great material. They are much more interested in marks than in thought and discussion. Some are even absolutely unprepared to write a sentence. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, there are usually at least a few students who are genuinely interested in learning and the material.

However, every so often you get sarahgrunfelded: a student who either wasn’t paying attention or just didn’t understand the point raises really questionable objections and demands an immediate and unconditional apology. I was sarahgrunfelded last week by a student who insisted that I had absolutely no right to discuss marital rape in a classroom because it might “offend someone” and, worse, that my illustration of Max Weber’s concept of charismatic domination with the example of Jesus opened up Christians to mockery and abuse.

This wasn’t the first time I was sarahgrunfelded. A few years ago–incidentally, in the same class–a student complained to my Chair because I used the word “fuck” once or twice in lecture. Admittedly, most professors do not swear during class–which is their decision and right–but I don’t see how language could possibly be construed as reasonable grounds for a complaint. Fortunately, my Chair agreed with me and we found a solution to the problem: the student was granted registration into a class which was already full; incidentally, the class the student actually wanted to take.

What was interesting about the most recent sarahgrunfelding was that the student didn’t object (at least as far as I could tell) on the basis of facts: the student didn’t attempt to deny that Jesus wasn’t an example of charismatic domination nor did the student attempt to deny that in 1982 in Canada there was no crime called “marital rape” but in 1983 there was. Both of those would have been reasonable objections: “You got the facts wrong” or “You misinterpreted the facts” or “The example doesn’t fit the concept.” All of those would have been reasonable.

What the student did object to was that “someone” who was never specified and who the student never claimed to be “might” be “offended” by the use of marital rape as an example to illustrate the connection between law and violence in positivist theories of the law. Likewise, the student objected that some Christians might be mocked because it is possible to analyze the structure of Jesus’s authority without recourse to his divinity thus making them look silly; that is, that non-Christians can discuss Christianity or that Christians can be critical about their faith.

Both objections aren’t just wrong, but they undermine the basis of the university classroom entirely. On the one hand, professors have to live in fear of being sarahgrunfelded for giving what are obviously textbook and routine examples. Fortunately this sarahgrunfelding didn’t lead to my picture being put in the paper. On the other hand, the classroom presupposes that anything and everything is open to questioning: this includes religion, this includes morality, this includes the law and politics, this includes the legitimacy of our communities and our state. There is nothing that should not be open to questioning and, therefore, discussion in the classroom. Any attempt to foreclose discussion and thought must be resisted and rejected. It is one thing when political controls on the classroom emanate from politicians and frauds like David Horowitz; it’s another thing entirely when it emanates from our students. This is deeply troubling and puzzling and those of us in the “business” of education must strongly resist these demands.

(Postscript: in an effort to address the student’s concerns, I wrote an exceptionally long and detailed email; the student hasn’t bothered to reply, but has dropped the course.)

My new desk! Note the sleek, modern, ergonomic design! And it has drawers for all my stuff!

A high-tech, straight out of the future computer that I can use to reply to student emails, write my lectures, and read Twitter! And it comes with a carrying case so I won’t break it when I present my latest findings at conferences!

In addition to communicating with students via email, I also have the latest voice-over-IP phone, so I can can actually talk to my students when they aren’t even in the room!

They thought of everything! Here is my iPod dock, so I can quietly listen to music at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven!

The office is furnished in the latest “retro” look: mid-century institutional design! It’s like they took that chair straight out of 1973, but it is actually from Modern Business Interiors, Ltd.!

To complement the modern furniture, the interior designers included some delightful art, such as this abstract wood-and-nail installation!

There is also some more ironic, industrial art! I don’t get it! Do I have to fill up my office with diesel to make the equipment run, or is this some kind of joke?! And the art is accessible!

If the interior wasn’t great enough (and it is!), I’ve also been provided with scenic views, such as this one of a blue box depot!

And another view, this time of some secret room–that’s where the magic happens!

I have a number of great colleagues in the Department. This is Professor Ground! (She’s looking dour because two out of three referees on her most recent submission to Studies in Political Economy recommended “revise and resubmit”!)

And this is another colleague from the Department: Professor Hog! (I bet he’s on his way to the library!)

I can’t wait to be officially set up in my new office!

• FYSM 1506R Topics in the Study of Societies: “Power & Violence” This seminar explores the relation between power and violence in modern and non-modern societies from a sociological perspective. The first semester is oriented towards developing theoretical and conceptual tools useful in the analysis of power and violence while the second semester turns to more substantive topics drawing upon movies, television and novels. This course is not about, strictly speaking, crime, but about how power and violence manifest themselves in society, are controlled and used in society, and what our imaginary reflections on power and violence say about our own society. Accordingly, the first semester will look at differences between modern and non-modern societies in how they organize violence. The emphasis here will be on increasing control over the individual body through the processes of modernization and civilization This entails spending a lot of time talking about barbarians, knights, and prisoners. The second semester turns to contemporary anxieties surrounding violence, especially as they are represented in culture. As a result, we will take up torture, murder, war, and zombies—basically everything entailed by the idea of the apocalyptic. The course culminates in a final project where students will be asked to apply theoretical concepts in an analysis of a popular culture artefact (e.g., movie, television show, comic book, novel, etc). This course is both reading and writing intensive. Students are advised to keep this in mind when registering. [PDF]
• LAWS 3005A Law and Regulation This course is concerned with the relation between law and regulation, broadly construed. More specifically, we will examine the role that power and violence plays in constructing a social, legal and political order. As a result, we will study general strategies for structuring legal and political power in relation to and by the modern state. The course begins with an overview of the historical sociology of the state and some theoretical reflections on the general relation between state power and violence. The remainder of the courses studies how violence, power and the law are used to organize and structure societies, by both the state and organizations beyond the state. We will discuss concepts such as sovereignty, government, biopolitics, and the state of exception. The course is both reading and writing intensive and the material is intentionally difficult: students should keep this in mind when enrolling in the course. [PDF]

I’ll be teaching LAWS 3908B Approaches in Legal Studies II in the Winter 2012 semester. The topic for the course will be “Animals, Law and Society.” That outline isn’t finished yet.

My average score for questions 1-12 (the “how do you assess…?” questions) was 4.75. In comparison, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences average was 4.50; the sociology faculty in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology average was 4.43; and the average for instructors teaching first year seminars (such as myself) was 4.53. My score for question 13 (“How do you evaluate the instructor?”) was 4.80. The Faculty score was 4.47; the departmental score was 4.38 and the first year seminar score was 4.57. In all cases, I was rated significantly higher than average.

Because it was a small class (ostensibly a seminar, although I did most of the talking) and because it was a full-year course, the written comments are bit more friendly than the norm.

Awesome course with a great final assignment. Could use more videos and more legible handwriting but these things happen.

Hi CRAIG :)

Thank you Craig for the best FYSM class that I could have hoped to imagine! All the other students in our classes bitch + complain about how much they hate their FYSMs. Sucks to be them! I thought this would be boring + dragged out but your [sic] made this class awesome, especially the vampire/zombie readings. I suggest more of those for your future classes because everyone would actually read them! All the readings had something interesting in their own way except a few of them were too long so its no wonder some people lost interest. On the whole thanks so much! :) I hope that I can find another class with you as the instructor in the future!!! Dave

Dear Mr. MacFarlane [sic], Great course! You have some awesome antics! I will be looking for your classes in the future so I can harass you all semester once again. Thanks!

Craig was very good teacher. He was very knowledgable and good at making sometimes tedious material interesting.

Great work. Your snide sense of humour made my thursdays. [I don't think "snide" means what the student thinks it means.]

Good course if you enjoy abstract sociological writings from dead guys. Course was pretty easy though, also Craig is hilariously cynical and this lightens up an otherwise somewhat monstrous class. Laptop ban sucked, don’t do that again. Second semester better than first. [I don't think "cynical" means what the student thinks it means.]

• FYSM 1506Q Topics in the Study of Societies–the topic for this course will be “Power and Violence.” Enrolment is limited to first year students in the “Criminal Matters” ArtsOne cluster.
• LAWS 3005A Law and Regulation–this course is offered in the Fall 2011 semester and is open to students with at least second-year standing. There are some formal requirements, but there is some leeway is waiving them for adequately prepared students. I haven’t decided upon particular topics and readings yet, but, traditionally, the course is organized around Foucault’s analysis of modern power: sovereignty–governmentality–discipline. Topics are traditionally divided into the historical (pastoral, police, political economy, early modern city, etc) and the contemporary (indefinite detention, modern cities, neo-liberalism, etc).
• LAWS 3908B Approaches in Legal Studies II–this course is offered in the Winter 2012 semester and is open to law students who have already completed LAWS 2908. I’m not sure if I have much leeway in opening the course to those who do not have the pre-requisite. At any rate, the focus for this class will be “Animals and the Law.” Topics will include the ontology of the animal, history and theory of human domination of nature, ethical theories relating to animal use, the development and state of animal protection law (focus on Canada), and assorted topics such as factory farming, scientific research, and pets.