Rebecca Moore Howard
Office: 239A HB Crouse
Office hours: By appointment
Telephone: 443-1083
E-mail: rehoward@syr.edu
Home page http://wrt-howard.syr.edu

Schedule
WRT 205-226
Unit 3: Researching Contemporary Events

April 1-8

1. Framing research questions: "How should we interpret these events?"
2. Gathering information: What happened? How can we sort fact from opinion? How can we evaluate media sources?
3. Developing a frame of analysis for the information: Will we simply repond to the events, or will we investigate the underlying issues? We have chosen four underlying issues for investigation: free speech; treason; professors' responsibilities; and journalists' responsibilities.
4. Analyzing the events by applying expert opinion on the underlying issues.

April 10

Preparation

Gather information on the events and the underlying issues.

Bring to class

The sources you've found for this project.

In class

Groups will convene to draft position statements. The question to be answered in the position statement is "How should we interpret this event?" The position statements will be collaborative; you must work with at least one other person. Students in the class will choose whom they will work with. The position statements need not be unanimous; not everyone in the group need come to exactly the same position. The position statements can reflect some variation in judgment but should be coherent, so you'll need to work with someone with whom you think you can reach significant agreement. Your position statement should answer the question, "How should we interpret this event?"; it should describe whatever difficulties, ambiguities, uncertainties, or contradictions you've encountered in coming to your position; and it should cite the sources you've consulted.

At the beginning of class, I'll ask each of you to say which case you want to write about and state briefly what your provisional judgment on the case is. Then I'll ask you to form into groups and begin drafting.

Those of you working on the de Genova case should gather information on professors' ethics. Two important sources would be the AAUP (American Association of University Professors), which has some very specific guidelines, and also the Columbia University faculty handbook. SU's faculty handbook is online, so I'm guessing Columbia's is, too. If it isn't, you can resort to citing the SU faculty handbook as an example of what universities expect of their faculty. Those of you working on the de Genova case may also find some helpful perspectives at this site: Teaching in a Time of War. It's a website set up by the National Council of Teachers of English. To use this site, you'd have to work somewhat by analogy again. De Genova is an anthropologist, not an English teacher, and the NCTE site is not legislating professional ethics but describing useful teaching methods. Yet you may find some perspectives here that will help ground your judgments.

Those of you working on the Arnett case should gather information on journalists' ethics. Karin has found one good site: the Society for Professional Journalists. Another potential source is the Editor and Publisher, an online trade journal for journalists. While it won't have ethical guidelines, you may detect in some of its stories about war journalism a sense of where journalists draw ethical lines in war reporting. It might be interesting to see what this publication says about the Arnett case, too.

For both the Arnett and de Genova cases, issues of free speech and treason are pertinent. You'll need sound sources on these. Consult the Constitution, encyclopedias, and peer-reviewed sources.

April 15

Class will meet on Tuesday 4/15, while I am in Minnesota. You can meet in our classroom, or at some other site that your group agrees on. We'll make those decisions in class on 4/10.

Bring to class

The sources you've found for this project.

In class

Finish drafting your collaborative position statement.

After class on April 15, send me your group's position statement by attached email. (You do not need to give me hard copy of the report.) When I've received these position statements (I'll be back from Minnesota late Tuesday), I'll post them to my website and send you the URLs.

April 17-21

April 21

Shannon 11:20-11:40

Scott 12:40-1:00

Jess 1-1:20

Karin 3:30-3:50

April 21

Dan 10:10-10:30

Tricia 10:30-10:50

Fred 11:40-12:00

Dyer 1-1:20

Michele 1:20-1:40

Lane 3-3:20

Preparation

1. Read your classmates' online position statements.
2. Review your graded papers for this course, and for other courses, as well. What issues of style and editing do your readers raise? What additional items do you yourself have on your style and editing agenda? Make a list, and bring it with you to class.

Bring to class

1. Printouts of your classmates' position statements.
2. The Longman Handbook.
3. Your style and editing list.

In class

1. Discuss and debate position statements
2. Discussion: Can we reach positions about the Arnett and de Genova incidents that are not governed by our opinions about the war against Iraq? Should we be able to?
3. Read your style and editing list aloud, and listen to everyone else's
4. Discussion: what issues of prose style should the class take up in Unit 4?

Back to Rebecca Moore Howard's homepage