In-Class, Feb. 25th, and homework for Feb. 27th

For those who were not in class today:

We've heard the remaining four smartboard presentations about our "Arguments of Definition." Kudos to all presenters (last time, and today)! Great job.

Then, we've read two texts in our light blue textbook. The first one is a short article by a professor about the freedom of speech ("Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard," pp. 123-124). After reading this, we created a brief outline on the board about what this writer has done: 1. he used a forensic argument (= of the past): in his university, some students had hung up Confederate flags, and a swastika; 2. he had a claim/argument (students are allowed to display Confederate flags and swastikas due to the freedom of speech), 3. he backed up his argument with credible sources (1st Amendment), 4. he had counter-arguments (this act is offensive to others), and 5. he presented a solution (talk to students doing such things; convince them that it's offensive, so they won't do it any more. If they don't get negative attention, the sensationalism will fade away, and they won't do it anymore, because their actions don't have any effect.)

After reading this first article, we read a student's response to it ("A Curse and a Blessing" from Milena, pp. 126-128). We analyzed what this student has been doing by reading the blue comments on the edge of her text. She basically did what we had done on the white board - our outline. She also added her personal opinion (both in the introduction and in the conclusion, so that the circle was complete): she grew up in Bulgaria, a communist state with no freedom of speech. This was her attention grabber, and the frame to her story. She further stated the professor's claim/main argument, and commented critically on it. She found some weaknesses of his claims, but also stated why his solution might actually work.

You are supposed to write responses just like Milena has done. She analyzed the Harvard professor's claim/argument very well indeed.

HOMEWORK:

For homework, read one story out of your DARK blue book called "Rights to Remember" by Harold Hongju Koh (pp. 405-409). This is a very critical article about America, the power nation, Bush, and the laws that have been made after 9/11.

Then, create an outline on paper just like we did on the board. What kind of forensic arguments (= about the past) are in this text? What is the main claim/argument? What backs it up / what are the sources? Are they credible? Is the text convincing? Does it offer any solution? Bring your outline to class on Wednesday.
This is the first text we are going to employ for our unit 2 essay. The other text will be the opposite - a pro-Bush article. We are going to compare those two. You have to base your comparison and ultimate decision which article is more convincing on the author's rhetoric, NOT on your own personal opinions about Bush and his actions/laws/policies.