Office Hrs: MW 10:30-12:00 OBA

Meeting times: MW 8:30-10:20, Gould 100

Introduction

This course continues with a question we have been exploring all year: what is a good society, and how do we create it? It examines this question by focusing on a particular form of good society: the democratic community. What is a good democratic community, and how do we create it? We explore this question through the lens of social structures. The central tension here is between sameness and difference. That is, we live in a society that is differentiated by all sorts of social structures (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, class); at the same time, we strive to come together into some form of unified democratic community. Should we sublimate our differences and focus on our shared citizenship, or should we emphasize our differences as our principle strength?

Course Goals

§ Critical literacy in foundational concepts such as utopia, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, difference, race, gender, sexuality.

§ Continue reproducing a viable and sustainable learning community among ourselves.

§ Develop effective discussion, decision making, and leadership skills in a variety of contexts.

§ Develop personal reading, writing, analytic, and presentation skills.

Student Responsibilities

Your responsibilities mirror those of last quarter. Among the responsibilities, one general one stands out.

Students have a responsibility to one another and to one another’s education. In this class and this major, you and your classmates will generate knowledge through discussion and deliberation. In order for the class to be successful, you must be an active participant in both teaching and learning. In class, each of you will participate by discussing and analyzing the material. Outside of class, each of you will participate by reading the material and preparing assignments carefully.

To meet this responsibility, you must meet several more specific ones:

1. Contribute thoughtfully to each day’s discussion and work

2. Complete all individual and group assignments in a timely manner while ensuring that the work is of a consistently superior standard. No late work will be accepted

3. Meet the agreed upon obligations of assigned work groups, insure that these groups function smoothly, and make real efforts to resolve internal disputes and differences among members

4. Help facilitate class discussions and provide constructive feedback on peer work

5. Write a narrative evaluation of your performance and progress in the course at the quarter’s end and meet with the instructor to discuss it

Students must also meet the CEP attendance requirements as outlined in CEP regulations. Attendance will be taken at all scheduled meeting times.

Instructor Responsibilities

Instructors play several vital roles in the class and can be relied upon to provide the following:

i. A safe and effective learning context: Our first job is to set the learning context for the course. In this case that means working with students to develop the structure of the course and to put in place the basic elements (calendar, assignments, readings) that will help students learn.

Setting the context also means that ultimately we will ensure that the learning environment is a safe and respectful environment for all CEP students. As a community, the class should maintain these standards by regulating itself, but if a student continues to feel that these standards are not being met then he or she must speak to one of the instructors so that we can find ways to resolve the problem.

ii. Timely feedback, advice, and instruction on course assignments and other course requirements: Students should expect instructors to provide timely and considered feedback on all course assignments and projects. Instructors will also be available to answer questions, provide advice and information, and otherwise aid the students in their learning in ways that are pedagogically appropriate.

iii. Assigning final credit for the course: Instructors will be responsible for assigning final course credit and determining whether or not a student has met the course requirements. As part of the final assessment process, the lead instructor will provide a written and oral evaluation of each student’s performance and progress for the quarter.

Course Readings

Course reader, available at Professional Copy and Print, 4200 University Way, 634-2689

Assessment

Your final assessment in this course will be based on your performance on the following:

Item	Percent	Date due
Overall Participation	25	Every class (see guidelines below)
Reading/question assignments	20	Each discussion class (see calendar, below)
2 Discussion leaderships	20	Classes in quarter TBD (see sign-up sheet)
Essay	25
Peer review of project work	10	Weeks 6 and 10 (see guidelines below)

Academic honesty

The University takes the offenses of cheating and plagiarism very seriously, and so do we. Cheating is taking advantage of the work of others. Plagiarism is representing the work of others as your own, without giving appropriate credit. In this class, essays and reading/question assignments are individual projects. Discussion leaderships are collaborative projects. If you are unsure what is OK or not OK, make sure to ask!

Timeline Summaries

CEP Junior Year, 2003-2004

Fall 2003 Winter 2004 Spring 2004

CEP 301 CEP 302 CEP 303

Who we are Develop Environment and Society Assessment

organization work plans Carry out projects Presentations

context

11 weeks 15 weeks 5 weeks

Class Schedule

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTIONS AND UTOPIAS

Monday, March 29

Introduction

· Course overview and learning objectives

Wednesday, March 31

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes):

Utopias

Reading:

Owen, R. 1999 (1844). The Book of the New Moral

World. In Claeys, G and Sargent, L. eds. The Utopian

Reader. New York: New York University Press, pp

207-219.

Reading/question assignment #1 due

WEEK 2: UTOPIAS AND GENERAL DEBATES

Monday, April 5

Discussion: Utopias continued

Reading:

Skinner, B.F. 1999 (1945). Walden Two. In Claeys,

G and Sargent, L. eds. The Utopian

Reader. New York: New York University Press, pp

373-389.

Reading/question assignment #2 due

Wednesday, April 7

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes): General debates (liberal/pluralist)

Reading:

Dunn, S. (2002) Rousseau’s political triptych. In Dunn, S., ed. The social contract and the first and second discourses. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 1-29.

Optional: Gitlin, T. (1995) The twilight of common dreams. New York: Metropolitan Books, pp. 1-39.

Reading/question assignment #3 due

WEEK 3: GENERAL DEBATES

Monday, April 12

Discussion: General debates (liberal/pluralist)

Reading:

Bohman, James, (xxxx). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Reading/question assignment #4 due

Wednesday, April 14

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion: General debates (liberal/pluralist)

Reading:

Optional: Mouffe, C. (2000) Introduction. In Mouffe, C. (2000) Which public sphere for a democratic society? Theoria (June): pp. 1-16.

Required: Mouffe, C. (2000) For an agonistic model of democracy. In Mouffe, C. (2000) Which public sphere for a democratic society? Theoria (June): pp. 80-107.

Reading/question assignment #5 due

WEEK 4: GENERAL DEBATES

Monday, April 19

Discussion: General debates (liberal/pluralist)

Reading:

Fraser, N. (2001) Recognition without ethics. Theory, Culture & Society 18(2): pp. 21-42.

Reading/question assignment #6 due

Wednesday, April 21

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes): General debates (liberal/pluralist)

Reading:

Kymlicka, W. (2000) Nation-building and minority rights: comparing West and East. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26(2): pp. 183-212.

Reading/question assignment #7 due

WEEK 5: CASE STUDY—RACE/ETHNICITY

Monday, April 26

Discussion: Segregation vs. integration

Reading:

Young, I. (1999) Residential segregation and differentiated citizenship. Citizenship Studies 3(2): pp. 237-252.

Reading/question assignment #8 due

Wednesday, April 28

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes): Malcolm X vs. MLK

Reading

King, M. (1963) I Have a Dream. Washington DC, August 28.

Malcolm X. (1968) The Harvard Law School Forum of March 24, 1961. In A. Epps, ed. The speeches of Malcolm X at Harvard. New York: William Morrow & Co., pp. 115-131.

Reading/question assignment #9 due

WEEK 6: CASE STUDY—GENDER

Monday, May 3

Discussion: Feminism and democracy

Reading:

Seigfried, C. (1999) Socializing democracy: Jane Addams and John Dewey. Philosophy of the Social Sciences (29)2: 207-230.

Reading/question assignment #10 due

Essay due

Wednesday, May 5

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes): Gender, religion, and culture

Reading:

Killian, C. (2003) The other side of the veil. Gender & Society 17(4): 567-590.

Reading/question assignment #11 due

First peer review of project work due (see guidelines below)

WEEK 7: CASE STUDY--???

Monday, May 10

Peer Review of Essays

Wednesday, May 12

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion: Gay Marriage

Reading:

Editorial. The case for Gay Marriage. The Economist, February 26.

Bush, G. (2004) President calls for constitutional amendment protecting marriage. Washington DC: The White House.

Protection of Marriage Committee. (1999) California Protection of Marriage Initiative. Sacramento.

Morris, B. (2004) Gay marriage? How straight. New York Times, March 7.

Reading/question assignment #12 due

WEEK 8: CASE STUDY—SEXUALITY AND ???

Monday, May 17

Discussion: Higher Education and the "Culture Wars"

Reading:

Clayton, C. (1992). Politics and Liberal Education: An

apolitical curriculum is a dangerous mirage. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. April 8.

Reading/question assignment #13 due

Wednesday, May 19

Project groups (50 minutes)

Discussion (50 minutes): Higher Education, continued

Reading:

Schlesinger, A.M. 1993 (1991). E Pluribus Unum? In

Lemert, C. ed. Social Theory: The Multicultural &

Classic Readings. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 567-

575.

Reading/question assignment #14 due

WEEK 9: PRESENTATIONS (Of Junior Projects)

Monday, May 24

Presentations

Wednesday, May 26

Retrospective

WEEK 10: SUMMING UP

Monday, May 31

No Class

Memorial Day

Wednesday, June 2

Retrospective

Second peer review of project work due

Final Essay due

EXAM WEEK

Notes:

We may need to schedule time (e.g. field trip, presentation day, community meeting day, etc.) with advance notice.

Peer Review of Project Work

CEP 303

Spring 2004

Idea

The idea of the peer review of project work is to recognize and evaluate the work each of you has done on the junior project. Since your peers are in a much better position to evaluate this particular work than your instructors, we will use a peer review format. The review should be an honest assessment of your peer’s sincerity, reliability, and energy in carrying out project work.

Format

The review should take the form of a brief narrative. Each member of a sub-group should evaluate:

1. every other member

2. themself

Try not to write more than 150 words for each person. This way, we can have a range of perspectives on each person’s contribution. If you are not part of a clearly defined sub-group, form a group of about five people that has worked together particularly closely and that agrees to evaluate each other’s work.

Due 6^th week and 10^th week (see calendar above).

Reading/Question Assignments

CEP 303

Spring 2004

Overview

For each discussion, you will prepare a reading/question assignment that has two goals. The reading assignment component provides you with an opportunity to develop your critical understanding of a particular reading. They will become progressively more challenging as the quarter progresses. We will proceed in several stages:

Understanding: you will state the author’s main argument in a single sentence.

Maximum 50 words

Deconstruction: you will analyze what this author is up to. Why has she written the piece? What is she trying to achieve? Where does she fit in to the debates?

Maximum 100 words

Critique: you will analyze the principle strength or weakness of the author’s argument.

Maximum 200 words

Application: you will explore how the author’s applies to a particular case (preferably your junior project).

Maximum 200 words

The question component (which is the same as last quarter) prepares you to discuss the reading. It should distill your reading experience into a discussion question that solicits the responses of the group, drawing others into a collective dialogue on the readings.

There will be 14 reading/question sets. The question assignments are worth 20% of your course grade. Each reading/question assignment will be graded on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 2 (highest). The question sets should be entirely your own work. This is not a collaborative assignment.

Good Discussion Questions

Good discussion questions are “open-ended.” They have a complex answer and/or a range of possible answers. They are usually not “closed-ended,” meaning that there is a particular, discrete answer. Good discussion questions are also genuine. That means you have not already made up your mind what the answer is. For example if you ask, “Is the U.S. right to attack Iraq without U.N. backing?” and you really have not made up your mind if the U.S. is right or not, your question is genuine. You are really asking. If, on the other hand, you ask, “Bush can’t really believe it is right to attack Iraq without U.N. support, can he?” you have made up your mind that it is wrong to attack. You are really telling, not asking. For the purposes of these discussion questions, ask, don’t tell.

Good, genuine questions can be descriptive. These ask about what actually is happening in the reading or in the world. Examples: “Does the author mean to say…?” or “Do you think power or money is more important to Saddam?” Good, genuine questions can also be normative. Normative questions ask what should be going on in the readings or in the world. For example, the genuine question above about whether the U.S. is right to attack is normative. Normative questions open up the issue of values, of what people think the world should be like. You can ask either descriptive or normative questions in your question sets.

Format

For each assignment, we will alert you beforehand which reading exercise (understanding, deconstruction, etc.) you should undertake. For the questions, you should ask at least one discussion question for each class session. If there is more than one reading, try to ask a question that captures something of each of the readings. The idea is for your question to engage each of the readings so you will be ready with ideas for anything the discussion leaders want to discuss.

The assignment should be typed, single-spaced, and you should try to fit it onto one page. Make sure your name is on the page.

The assignment for a particular set of reading are due the day we discuss the readings. See the syllabus for specific dates.

Participation

CEP 303

Spring 2004

Participation makes up roughly 25% of your course grade. It is important. And there is no way around participating. As the syllabus lays out, each of you has a responsibility to others in the class to share your ideas and insights. The way this happens is by you speaking during class. If you do not share your questions and ideas with everyone, they can’t benefit from what you have to offer. Each of you has important questions and ideas to share that we can all learn from. We say this from experience. Taken together we have taught many courses and many hundreds of students, and we have yet to encounter a student who did not have something valuable to offer the rest of the class. Therefore, since you all have something important to contribute, you all have a responsibility to contribute it.

You will be graded on participation class-by-class. Effective participation is not measured by amount. If you make a single thoughtful and genuine contribution to the class, you will receive full credit for that class. If you make 15 thoughtful and honest contributions to the class, you will receive full credit for that class. If you consistently share your ideas and questions and concerns in an honest effort to explore the material in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, you will receive a good grade for participation.

So, the strategy for participation is this: do not hesitate to share your thoughts. Do not think that they have to be fully formed and 100% defensible before you offer them. Do not think that they have to be brilliant or dazzling. Do not think that you can’t contribute until you’ve read the book that guy in the corner just said they read in his Social Anthropology course. Do not think you should remain quiet because you have different ideas about a topic than most others in the class (that’s when we need you most). And, most importantly, do not think that you have to know before you speak. Honest questions and true struggles within yourself that you have not yet resolved are the best way to contribute.

Remember also that listening is as important as talking. Asking genuine questions (for which you have not already decided on an answer) is a good way to listen. If you ask a question that you do not already have an answer for, you will genuinely want to hear what your classmates have to say. The worst thing for discussion is a series of unrelated monologues. What we are shooting for are true dialogues in which you engage the comments and questions of others rather than following them up with unrelated comments and questions. Be curious about what others have to say.

We understand that oral participation in class is a struggle for some. We are willing to explore any and all ways to help you participate. If you feel uncomfortable with speaking in class, you should come see or e-mail Chris or Mark so we can think of ways to make it more comfortable. We stand ready to help you find ways to speak, but the responsibility for participating is yours. Again, the structure of the class means there is no way around participation. The quality of learning in the class depends on it, and a large portion of your grade depends on it.

Discussion Leadership

CEP 303

Spring 2004

Summary

The idea of the discussion leaders is to have two students for every discussion who serve as leaders of the discussion. There will be a discussion duo for all of the classes that involve discussions (which is nearly every class). Each of you will lead discussion twice during the quarter. You can sign up for the class you want to lead on the circulating sign-up sheet.

The discussion leaders will lead the class in an exploration of the important ideas in the readings. Each leader has quite a bit of freedom in deciding on the format of the class exploration. Whole-group discussion, structured debates, small-group discussion, jigsaw, role-playing, brainstorming, and fishbowl format are just some possibilities (for more information, refer to the page on techniques for planning a discussion, below). Remember you also have everyone’s discussion questions as a source to draw on. We encourage you to be creative in thinking up ways to inspire the class to engage in an energetic exchange of ideas and opinions. Do not be afraid to try innovative discussion formats—it will not hurt your discussion grade, and it will enliven the discussions.

In preparing their material, the leaders should complete the readings well in advance and then meet to formulate the content of discussion and its structure. The content will be one or more key questions about the readings that will form the backbone of discussion. The idea is for the discussion leader to inspire everyone to explore the reading in insightful ways. In preparing the questions that will guide discussion, it is a good idea to refer to the section on “good discussion questions” on the discussion questions handout. Also, don’t forget that everyone has a set of his or her own questions that you can draw on as well. The structure of discussion will be up to you. Refer to the page on discussion techniques for some possible ideas to get you started.

We also encourage leaders to consult with us in developing your plan. Everyone should sign up early and spend lots of time preparing your class. In general, the more preparation a leader does, the better the discussion goes.

Grading

Your two discussion leaderships, taken together count for 20% of your course grade.

The Rest of You

The existence of the discussion leaders is in no way an opportunity for the rest of the class to take it easy. The discussion leaders will guide the discussion, but they should by no means do most of the talking. Their role is to stimulate you to engage in an insightful discussion. Thus the rest of the class should digest the readings as usual and come prepared to participate fully along the lines laid out by the lead group.

Techniques for Planning a Discussion CEP 303 Spring 2004

These are just some basic structures. You should feel absolutely free to innovate as you like. Some assume more than one leader and so may need some tweaking to be effective with a single leader.

Whole group—everyone engages in discussion together at one time. This is good because you can get a greater range of ideas and opinions with a larger group. Large groups are sometimes tricky to manage well though, so having a good set of stimulating questions is important so you can shape the discussion to move in insightful directions that you have thought out beforehand. Large-group can also be a more intimidating setting in which to speak.

Small-group discussion—the class is broken up into small groups to discuss. They can have the same topic to discuss, or they can have different topics. In jigsaw, the groups each discuss different aspects of a larger topic, and then they rejoin into a whole group to see how each group’s issues/conclusions fit together.

Inverse pyramid (invented by students leaders in Geography 301, Fall 2002)—a version of jigsaw where the class starts out in eight small groups and each uses their discussion questions to come up with what they think is the most thought-provoking question. The groups then pair off, and the groups in each pair exchange their question with each other. Each group then discusses alone the new question they have been given. Then, the paired groups come together to discuss their responses to the two questions. These paired groups then formulate one question they want to ask the whole class. Then the class comes back together to explore the joint questions of each paired group.

Rotate (invented by student leaders in Geography 301, Spring 2001)—each leader develops questions on a particular sub-topic of the day’s topic. The class is divided up into small groups so that there are the same number of small groups as there are discussion leaders. Then, the leaders move in shifts from group to group so that each leader has a chance to lead each group. That way, each group gets a chance to discuss each aspect of the day’s topic. At the end, you can bring the group back into whole-group to share insights.

Structured debates—where two sides of a specific issue are pitted against each other, usually given roles to play, and their interaction is moderated by a moderator.

Four-square—the leaders set aside four corners labeled “agree,” “tend to agree,” “tend to disagree,” and “disagree.” They then make a statement, for example: “nationalism is a good thing.” Then each person in the class goes to the corner they decide best describes their reaction to the statement. The group in each corner discusses for a while why they agree/disagree/etc. with the statement. The class then goes back into large group to engage in debate over the issue. At the end, the leaders ask if anyone would like to change corners. Those that do are asked to share why their position changed during the debate.

Brainstorming—the leaders ask the class to come up with ideas about a given topic (say, “reasons why you oppose the war in Iraq” and “reasons why you support the war in Iraq”). The product of that brainstorming (usually written on the board) can then serve as the basis for discussion, or it can be a way to sum up a discussion.

Fishbowl—here one small-group engages in discussion and the rest of the class observes their discussion. Different small-groups can rotate into the fishbowl—they can discuss different topics or the same topic.

Role-playing—is a general technique that can be applied to any of the above methods. A person or group is given a role to play (rather than playing themselves), which gives them a certain point of view to argue from. This is particularly helpful when there is an issue you think most people (when playing themselves) will agree on; you can have people play roles that are in opposition to the common opinion.

Skits—a kind of role playing where actors play out a skit you write beforehand. The idea is to act out an idea/debate/issue from the readings, and then have the class discuss their reactions to the skit.

Each of these can be used in combination, or alone. Don’t be afraid to invent new techniques as well. In the past, when leaders have tried new things, it has been successful and has helped keep discussion fresh.

Again, you are welcome and encouraged to consult with us in planning your leadership session.

CEP 303 Learning Contract

Spring Quarter 2004

I affirm that I have read the syllabus for CEP 303, Sping Quarter 2004 and that I understand and agree to the course requirements specified within it. In particular, I have read, understood, and agreed to the sections titled "Student Responsibilities", "Assessment", and "Academic Honesty" and understand that my evaluation for this course will be based on the principles and requirements specified within them.

____________________________________

(printed name)

_______________________________ ________________

(signature) (date)