allowing an in-class performance of the argument, followed by a jury-review
of the arguments by the class, may produce an interesting teachable moment.
*i'm* wondering if there is something mick has or hasn't said that can be
developed into an argument by either side. when making the assignment,
mick, how did you envision students completeing it? did you work this
possibility into the assignment?
i assume no since you're posting this to the list as a dilemma. so, the
moment remains. i say you follow eric's advice. present the material to
the class as *you* see it, problems and all -- expose your undecidedness.
and act as the judge. allow the "defendant" to chose a proxy, a
representative (a spokesperson -- not a lawyer per se) and allow the one
outpoken opponent to play the "prosecution" since s/he called for
disciplinary action -- or as merely the "contrary" position. then let them
figure it out, allowing everyone to speak.
of course, since this is a writing to the web class, all the rhetorical
interaction should take place on-line as eric has suggested. i'm not sure
you want to *aim* for publication, but if it works out, why not?
At 12:26 PM 8/5/96 -0500, Eric Crump wrote:
>Maybe the final should be an open class discussion--synchronous &
>asynchronous--of the ethics of ownership, with each participant
>simultaneously contributing to the conversation and building a web site
>providing evidence supporting a stance or stances, either pointing to other
>sites on ethics or *performing* an ethical stance? Port the discussion
>to the web with an index of the individually constructed sites, and...