Justice Unit Discussion Instructions

Tuesday 5/19/15

Please bring your copies of all of the following texts to class:

The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass— Douglass

Darrow’s closing argument in defense of Leopold and Loeb

“On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”— Thoreau

“Address to a Joint Session of Congress”—George W. Bush

King's Letter from Birmingham Jail (also in textbook)

Malcolm X's The Ballot or the Bullet [Read for Fri. 5.1]

“God’s Justice and Ours”—Antonin Scalia

“A Hanging”—George Orwell

“First Inaugural Address”—FDR

The Melian Dialogue— Thucydides

“The Hero We Create: 9/11 & The Reinvention of Batman”—Feblowitz

Discussion Questions to Ponder:

  1. Overarching Question: Is justice moral righteousness, equity of treatment, or reciprocity of action? Is justice an evolution of an idea or an incontrovertible fact?
  2. It is very easy to dismiss some of what makes the above question problematic by saying “everyone’s idea of morality is different, so you can’t really define justice in terms of moral righteousness.” Is this a responsible or realistic attitude? What would it mean if you couldn’t take morality into account when creating or evaluating a justice system?
  3. Do the needs (or the lives) of the many always outweigh the needs (or the lives) of the few? When might they not? How would the various authors we’ve read this six weeks respond to those questions?
  4. How good do the ends have to be to justify immoral/illegal means? Or do the ends never justify such means? What would the authors say?
  5. Look at the authors and their arguments. Who makes an argument about justice and is in a position of power? Who argues from a position without much power? Do you see any correlations or patterns? Do those in power (or without power) tend to have similar ideas about what is just or right?
  6. Looking back over the history we’ve covered this quarter (from Thucydides to Thoreau to Bush) has the sense of justice changed? If so, how? Has that change been radical? Superficial? Is it a change for the better? The worse?
  7. The texts for this quarter address questions of fear almost as frequently as they do questions of justice or morality. Do you see this as coincidence? Look at the different fears that are raised and how the authors deal with them. What are your observations? How are justice and fear related?
  8. Another issue that comes up in a variety of these texts is the pressure to conform (to a different culture, to what is expected, to a different moral code, etc.). How do these authors address the issue? What do they present as the cost of conforming or not conforming?
  9. Looking over the texts, what patterns or connections do you see? Pay attention to commonalities in purpose, content, rhetorical strategies, audiences, etc.

You also need to bring 3 discussion questions to class. These should be upper-level questions. Do not ask questions that have easy answers. You do not necessarily need to know the answer to your own questions. In fact, it might be best to ask questions you yourself are wondering about. These questions should open up discussion. Think of them as springboards. If there is a lull in discussion, you should be prepared to jump in with your questions.

 Students who will be absentshould type up three questions of their own, and thenpick three of the discussion questions listed above and type up responses to each (about half a page to a page per response, single-spaced) that include relevant, specific textual evidence. These responses will be graded in place of your participation in class discussion.

What to expect: The discussion will be set up as one big circle. Everyone must speak at least twice to pass.

Ground Rules:

  1. There is no winning here. This is not a debate where one side is trying to outdo the other. This is a discussion where we are all bringing something to the table, and together hoping to work towards a better understanding of the texts.
  1. Keep the discussion text-based. Cite specific examples and quotations. This means that you will need all texts in front of you! Come prepared.
  1. Disagree with ideas, not people.
  1. Do not use the time when others are talking just to think of what you will say. Pay attention. If necessary, we will institute the rule that as part of your response, you will need to repeat the argument of the previous person (as in, “I think what you’re saying is that Thoreau ______, and I agree to a certain extent, but I think we also need to consider______.”).
  1. Respond to the idea at hand. Do not bring up new points randomly when others are still discussing something else.
  1. Look to invite new voices to speak. Your job is not just to share your ideas, but to ask questions that provoke high-level responses from others.
  1. We are looking to cover entirely new ground in this discussion. Comments should show evidence of independent thinking. Do not rehash what we have already discussed.
  1. Do not dominate conversation (either individually or with back and forth banter). You are not graded on the number of times you speak, but on the quality of your contribution. If you interrupt or talk over others, you will lose points. If you are not engaged in the conversation, you will lose points. If you continually display such disrespectful behavior, you will be asked to leave.

Grading:

  • Everyone must speak at least twice to pass. You WILL receive a 0 if you don’t speak. There is no alternate assignment.
  • The grade is based on quality of contribution, not quantity of comments. Someone who makes one excellent comment and asks one insightful question may get a 95%, while another person who speaks thirteen times and never really contributes much (just rehashes previous class discussions, just repeats what others are saying, only pipes up to say “I agree,” etc.) may get a 70%.

Sample Grading Rubric