back home
English 236, Section 2, Spring 2004
WRITING & REASONING:THE JURY PROJECT
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Description | Assignments
| Policies | Texts | Grades
| Calendar | WWW
links
1. DESCRIPTION.
English 236, the English Department's Bascom Course, is a
low-enrollment, faculty-taught, intermediate-level writing course
designed to help you develop your skills in written argument, critical
reading, logical thinking, public speaking, and the use of information
resources. It fulfills the university's Communication B
requirement and assumes successful completion of or exemption from the
Communication A requirement.
This section of English 236 is titled Writing and Reasoning: The Jury
Project. It offers practice in written and spoken argument
through the use of mock jury deliberations. This is the third
time I've taught the course, but it is still something of an experiment
for me; I am confident it will be like no other writing class you've
had. The focus of the class is "public" discourse. But this
does not mean that I will be asking you simply to express your opinions
on controversial topics, practice campaign-style "rhetoric," or engage
in political activism. Rather, I will be asking you to use
written and spoken argumentation as a way to reason, with others,
through
complex problems. The model of public life that I'm
working with here is similar to what some political philosophers have
called "deliberative democracy," a form of social activity that
involves normal people working together to solve shared problems,
negotiate conflicts and differences, and shape their communities in
mutually beneficial ways.
The central player in such activity is the citizen, whom I define, following
Aristotle, as someone who shares in civic judgment. For
Aristotle, one of the most important offices of civic judgment was that
of the juror, a member of a
body formed to hand down a verdict
or make a decision on some matter. Jury deliberations are
familiar to most of us from television and movies; they remain an
important, and distinctive, feature of American self-government.
According to Jeffrey Abramson, "no other institution of government
rivals the jury in placing power so directly in the hands of citizens";
though it could be argued that preparing young people to serve on
juries is so far from a prominent developmental objective of our
schools that we might as well say they are actually
hostile to it.
What are some of the features of jury deliberations? First,
juries are open to all, i.e., they are a general, non-expert form of
public deliberation. Second, jury deliberations are intensely
social, the decision emanating from a group rather than from one or
another individual. Third, the decisions of juries are reached
(ideally at least) by rational argument rather than by arbitrary
choice, physical violence, or coercion. Fourth, such
argumentation takes place in the everyday language of informal
discussion. And fifth, juries enact practical or case-based
reasoning, concerned as they are not with justice in general but with
the particular situation or case at hand. It is this kind of
deliberative activity that we will use as a model for reading, writing,
and speaking in this course.
The course is not, however, about the law or the jury system (though
you will no doubt learn a great deal about both), nor is it a course
meant to prepare you for actual jury duty (though that would be a
valuable by-product – it's surprising how little jury duty seems to
have figured in our education system, though the cognitive, social, and
discursive demands placed on jurors in our society are quite
daunting). The primary reason for using the jury here is that it
is a powerful model of social problem-solving and argument. And
it is those things that we will focus on here.
back to top
2. ASSIGNMENTS.
Work in the course will include:
A.) Two weeks of reading and talking in fairly general terms
about politics, practical reason, and rhetoric. We'll learn some
history, acquire a little theory, and note some important problems and
questions. We'll also introduce ourselves to the procedure we’ll
be using this semester.
B.) Twelve weeks working on three specific "cases." The
first of these will be a mock civil trial from Georgetown University's
Street Law project; the second will be an actual case from the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2003-04 docket; the third will be determined as the
semester progresses. We'll work on each case through a
combination of individual, small-group, and whole-class
activities. Specifically, you will:
1) be introduced to the case;
2) read and summarize individual arguments;
3) synthesize multiple arguments into a "map" of the case;
4) analyze and critique opposing arguments on the same sub-question;
5) deliver and respond to oral arguments;
6) deliberate individually and together;
7) vote; and
8) write an opinion either supporting or dissenting from the majority.
Each case will last about four weeks. For the oral argument
phase, you will play the role of advocate once and juror twice.
Advocates will be responsible for preparing and delivering oral
arguments to the class. Jurors will be responsible for asking
questions of the advocates during these arguments. Everyone will
be responsible for carefully reading all materials pertaining to the
case; writing summaries, syntheses, and analyses of the positions
involved; participating in whole-class discussion and voting; and
writing final opinions. For each case, each of you will turn in
to me:
• a written summary of a single
argument in the case (1 p),
• a synthesis "map" integrating all the main arguments in the case (1
p),
• an analysis of opposing arguments on one or more sub-questions (3
pp), and
• a position paper justifying your final decision in the case (5-7 pp).
You will also be graded on your participation both in oral arguments
specifically and in class discussions more generally.
C.) One meeting for final reflections about your experiences in
the course.
back to top
3. POLICIES.
Attendance is required for this class. A poor attendance record
(2
consecutive or 3 total absences) will adversely affect your
grade.
If you miss class 4 times over the course of the semester, you will not
pass the class. If you anticipate being absent from class, notify
me. You are responsible for making up work missed due to absence,
although such work may still be penalized. Late arrival to class
may be counted as an absence.
Papers and exercises should be turned in at the beginning of class
on
the date due and either typed or word-processed. Late papers will
be penalized one letter grade for each day late.
As for plagiarism, it is academically dishonest, and sometimes
illegal,
to present someone else's ideas or writing as your own. You
cannot
use even short phrases or parts of sentences obtained from other
sources
unless you properly document those sources. Documentation
includes
marking quotations as well as providing notes, citations, and a
reference
list. In addition, it is academically dishonest to submit your
own
previously written work for a current assignment or to submit an
assignment
in more than one class without the prior permission of the
instructors.
Plagiarism and academic misconduct of any kind may constitute grounds
for
failing the course and may result in further disciplinary action
according
to university policy.
back to top
4. TEXTS.
Most of the readings for the class will be available in coursepaks from
Bob's Copy Shop, 37 University Square (257-4536). There will be 3
packets, one for each case; in the past, these packets have averaged
less than $10.00 each. The first packet should be ready by the
beginning of Week 2. We will also be reading D. Graham Burnett's A Trial By Jury (New York: Random
House, 2002); it is available now at University Book Store for about
$12 – you should buy this book right away as we will be discussing it
during the second week of the semester. Additional readings for
the course will either be distributed in class or made available on the
internet for downloading and printing at your own expense.
back to top
5. GRADES.
I use a 4 point system for evaluating your work: 4 for excellent; 3 for
good; 2 for fair; 1 for poor; and 0 for unacceptable or missing.
Intermediate grades may be used (e.g., 3.5).
Final grades will be computed using the following formula:
| 3 |
summaries |
@ 5 % ea. |
15 % |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
synthesis maps |
@ 5 % ea. |
15 % |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
analyses/critiques |
@ 5 % ea. |
15% |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
oral arguments |
@ 5 % ea |
15% |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
position papers |
@ 10/15/15 % |
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
Final Grade |
= |
100 |
|
|
|
|
back to top
6. CALENDAR.
|
|
|
Unit I: Introduction |
| Week 01 |
Tu |
Jan 20 |
introduction to course |
|
Th |
Jan 22 |
no class |
| Week 02 |
Tu |
Jan 27 |
reading: Burnett Part I |
|
Th |
Jan 29 |
reading: Burnett Part II |
|
|
|
|
Unit II: First Case |
| Week 03 |
Tu |
Feb 03 |
introduction to case 1 |
|
Th |
Feb 05 |
reading individual arguments (summary due) |
| Week 04 |
Tu |
Feb 10 |
integrating multiple arguments (synthesis due) |
|
Th |
Feb 12 |
critiquing specific arguments (analysis due) |
| Week 05 |
Tu |
Feb 17 |
oral arguments (advocacy and questioning) |
|
Th |
Feb 19 |
deliberation; Paper 1 (written opinion) draft due |
| Week 06 |
Tu |
Feb 24 |
deliberation; voting |
|
Th |
Feb 26 |
Paper 1 final due |
|
|
|
|
Unit III: Second Case |
| Week 07 |
Tu |
Mar 02 |
introduction to case 2 |
|
Th |
Mar 04 |
reading individual arguments (summary due) |
| Week 08 |
Tu |
Mar 09 |
integrating multiple arguments (synthesis due) |
|
Th |
Mar 11 |
critiquing specific arguments (analysis due) |
| Week 09 |
|
Mar 13-21 |
Spring Recess |
| Week 10 |
Tu |
Mar 23 |
oral arguments (advocacy and questioning) |
|
Th |
Mar 25 |
deliberation; Paper 2 (written opinion) draft due |
| Week 11 |
Tu |
Mar 30 |
deliberation; voting |
|
Th |
Apr 01 |
Paper 2 final due |
| Week 12 |
Tu |
Apr 06 |
no class |
|
|
|
|
Unit IV: Third Case |
|
Th |
Apr 08 |
introduction to case 3 |
| Week 13 |
Tu |
Apr 13 |
reading individual arguments (summary due) |
|
Th |
Apr 15 |
integrating multiple arguments (synthesis due) |
| Week 14 |
Tu |
Apr 20 |
critiquing specific arguments (analysis due) |
|
Th |
Apr 22 |
oral arguments (advocacy and questioning) |
| Week 15 |
Tu |
Apr 27 |
deliberation; Paper 3 (written opinion) draft due |
|
Th |
Apr 29 |
deliberation; voting |
| Week 16 |
Tu |
May 04 |
Paper 3 final due |
|
|
|
|
Unit V: Conclusion |
|
Th |
May 06 |
Last Class Day |
back to top