“I’m hoping that someday before I graduate I get a chance to appreciate the construction that’s currently underway.

I won’t, however, be holding my breath. Despite claims of completion by November, I happen to know, from personal experiences living “upstate,” that winter is not historically sympathetic to planning of any sort. Given Binghamton’s penchant for nasty weather, I’d say a mid-October frost is definitely a possibility. Frost and unpleasant weather have a funny tendency to set construction back rather effectively. After all, the joke has always been that we only have two seasons — winter and construction.”

Few ideas have the ability to send me into a both murderous and righteously indignant rage, but “self-plagiarism” is one of them. That excerpt came from a column I wrote in September 2006. Has my opinion on the matter changed? No. Did any of the things that led me to form that opinion change? No.

Why, then, would it be considered unacceptable for me to reuse this portion of my writing in another forum? I wrote it, and I believe it and if you tell me I can’t ever use things I’ve said more than once, we’re looking at one awfully dull future for conversationalists. And for the language in general.

There are no limits to the number of times things can be said. Ask Bill Clinton if he had sexual relations “with that woman.” Ask Barack Obama what he thinks of “Change.” Ask any number of famous people, celebrities and scholars alike, what they did to become household names. They all got famous by doing or saying something in a unique, but repetitive fashion.

I understand why professors are often adamant about the idea of “self-plagiarism,” and I can easily see that many students would resubmit an essay to excess. On the other hand, I see no reason to rephrase and redo an essay that I’ve already researched and written well the first time around. It’s not up to me to design a more unique essay topic, and for the occasions when I’m given the freedom to choose my essay, it stands to reason that I might be inclined to choose the subjects that interest me more than once.

Self-plagiarism is absolutely ridiculous as a term. You can’t possibly plagiarize yourself, insofar as having already said something doesn’t mean you can’t say it again. Professors have no right to threaten action against students who wish to recycle portions of old essays into new papers. Who dictates whether or not we’re allowed to reiterate a position we’ve already taken? It’s not as if a professor never reused an idea in a scholarly work.

Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, and the right to maintain that opinion over time. Just because the course title changed, one shouldn’t be forced to change positions on a topic.

I have opinions on almost everything, and although I’d like to think I’m open to change, I happen to think that my stubbornness is more overdeveloped than I have previously thought to acknowledge. Translation: The things I thought about public opinion or linguistics or population studies are still holding true today, even years after I’ve taken the courses. There’s a certain danger in allowing ideas to become unquestionably ingrained, but nevertheless, there’s no reason to change opinions just to please a new professor.

And for the record, some things never change. Like my stance on general education requirements.