A
10:002 or 10:003 Unit ~ Christian Science, Euthanasia, and the Rhetoric
of Suffering
|
|
|
Assignments
|
|||||||
|
Below are some suggestions for speech assignments that connect well with the material, but also serve a practical function to advance and reinforce the major focus of this unit (i.e., the speeches are not an isolated portion of the class; rather, they are integrated into the overarching theme and goals). 1. The formal speech approach I recommend for a controversy-based curriculum is to assign students to work in groups of 4 or 5 and “map” at least 4 to 5 different viewpoints on a suffering-related controversy of their choosing (excluding euthanasia and Christian Science). For this assignment, students should be encouraged not just to identify and summarize 4 to 5 viewpoints, but also to explore how each of these viewpoints is influenced or determined by the author’s assumptions or values in regard to suffering. Not only does this encourage an engaged analysis; it also helps hone the students’ sophistication in thinking about the way values underlie a controversy. Meanwhile, the class can “map” either the controversy on euthanasia or Christian Science collectively—as a model for what students should be striving to achieve in their group speeches, and as a means to clarify what it means to adequately “map” a controversy. Additionally, the round of group speeches serves a practical, efficient function: it offers a nice sample of 5 or 6 controversies so that students can subsequently make a more informed choice about which controversy they will address in their formal advocacy essay (however, students should not be allowed to write on the same controversy that they addressed in their own group speech). 2. You might also assign students to deliver informal “mini-presentations,” in which a small group of two or three students presents a brief overview or panel-presentation about the various ways suffering is represented in a particular text. Essentially, you should ask students to describe how exactly the author represents suffering in his/her text, and what values are informing this representation. It is also helpful if you ask them to explain how the author’s representations of suffering intersect with or challenge those of the other authors they have encountered so far. (In particular, see the list of questions above, under the heading Structuring the Readings.) Not only can students discuss the text, but they can also be asked to link the text to a particular mini-controversy where the values conveyed in the text heavily inform the shape of the controversy. The goal is to gain more specific insight into each author’s views about suffering and to get students thinking critically about their own views by comparison. To further facilitate this goal, small groups should be asked to conclude their mini-presentations with two or three discussion questions designed to start off the class discussion for that day. These group presentations will be especially well-served if you meet with the groups a day or two prior to the class period to ensure they have developed adequate discussion questions. This activity might also serve as a major speech assignment for the course, but it does not serve the interests of a controversy-based curriculum as well as the other options. 3. Alternatively, informal or formal student speeches could take the form of panel debates about the issue of euthanasia—an issue which lends itself to several possible debate topics: Should euthanasia be legalized or not? Do we have a “right” to euthanasia, or does the law have an obligation to “protect” suffering patients from themselves? Is there a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia—should one form be legal but not the other? If we legalize euthanasia, should the patient be able to determine its implementation freely, or should there be carefully-codified legal restrictions on the usage of such measures? If the law legislates the circumstances under which euthanasia is considered legally available, what precise limits should be set for the degree of pain, age, terminal nature of the illness, before euthanasia can be implemented etc.? Since emotional pain can be fiercely detrimental to a person, should euthanasia be a viable option in those cases, or is its use restricted to physical pain? Obviously, there is a vast range of issues that can serve as convenient topics for a panel debate between groups of 2 to 4 students, each taking a “side” and supporting their arguments with careful reasoning. |