GRADED CONVERSATION



Team Polaris Name ________________

American History Date _________________

GRADED CONVERSATION

In order to prepare you for academic and personal communication, you will hold a graded conversation with fellow classmates without your teacher’s interjections. It is your job as a class to hold an intelligent and thought-provoking conversation on the issues without encouragement or prompting from an adult. Real world conversation is awaiting you, and you need to become an active participant in this human experience.

How will you be graded?

Each student will earn a C- if s/he has all the necessary materials for the discussion, and if s/he demonstrates attentiveness in the conversation. (Ex. nodding/eye contact)

Each time you participate in the class discussion, you will move up a grade as follows:

|# of Times Participate |Your |Number Grade |

| |Grade | |

|2 | C |22 |

|4 | C+ |23.5 |

|6 | B- |24 |

|8 | B |25 |

|10 | B+ |26.5 |

|12 | A- |27 |

|14 | A |28 |

|16 | A+ |30 |

The Catch: Participation is active participation. You cannot make comments such as “I agree” or “That’s what I was thinking,” and then sit back and relax. You must prove to the group that you care about what others have said and you are ready to analyze and challenge ideas in the group.

Participation is defined as:

1. Responding directly to previous statements/comments

2. Using textual support/evidence

3. Connecting the articles to topics discussed in class

4. Participating from the beginning to the end of the conversation

The Fishbowl Discussion:

• Five students in the center with one empty chair.

• You may not leave until you have said at least one insightful comment.

• When an audience member has something to say, anyone can come sit in the empty chair. A student who has already spoken must then leave.

Current Event Debate

In today’s world, events happen every day that affect our individual lives and society. Please read the attached excerpts of current events and then answer the following questions on a separate piece of paper. Give your answers serious and intense thought. We will be using your responses for a debate in class.

Questions for “Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument”:

1. Be sure to look up in the dictionary any words you do not understand!

2. What is the argument against the D.C. gun law (saying D.C. does not have the right to ban hand guns for private citizens)?

3. What is the argument in support of the D.C. gun law (saying D.C. has a right to ban hand guns for private citizens)?

4. What do you think? Should the government have the right to ban all guns, or maybe just certain kinds of guns, from private citizens? What would the benefits or detriments (bad things) be to banning guns? Your answer for this question should be at least one to two paragraphs long. Give your answer serious and intense thought.

Questions for “Court to rule on profanity on TV shows”:

1. Be sure to look up in the dictionary any words you do not understand!

2. What is the argument against the ban on profanity on the TV? (What do you think it is?)

3. What is the argument in support of the ban on profanity on the TV? (What do you think it is?)

4. What do you think? Should the government have the right to ban profanity on the TV? What would the benefits or detriments (bad things) be to banning profanity? Your answer for this question should be at least one to two paragraphs long. Give your answer serious and intense thought.

Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

By Lee Ross

Tuesday's arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling — expected by June 2008— could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital and one party to the case, argues its handgun ban “is a governmental duty of the highest order.” The contrary argument claims the city's law is too strict in its infringement of Second Amendment rights, which states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The person at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the strictest in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporter’s say is necessary and successful.

That ruling disagreed with decades of laws that held the Second Amendment right was exclusive to militias. The D.C. government appealed that ruling and in November the Supreme Court announced it would take the case.

The D.C. government presents three overarching arguments to the Court. First, the city contends the D.C. Circuit was wrong in its basic interpretation of the law.

“The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes,” reads the appeal by the city to the high court. Specifically, it points to the language of the Second Amendment and argues both clauses taken individually or in concert can only be read to suggest its application to militias and not individuals.

As for its historical argument, the city concludes, “There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment.”

The city's attorneys detail the debate that preceded the enactment of the law as part of the Bill of Rights. In so doing, the city draws upon the works of William Blackstone, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and similarly worded legislation passed in the late 18th century. It argues the Founders’ “efforts surely were purposeful, and should not be ignored two centuries later.”

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.

In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

Court to rule on profanity on TV shows

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case involving a government ban on “fleeting expletives.”

By John Dunbar, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will decide whether it is indecent when some foul-mouthed celebrity drops the “F-word” on live television, stepping into its first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years.

The high court said Monday it would hear arguments in the case involving a government ban on “fleeting expletives,” one-time uses of familiar but banned words that can bring big fines. The ban covers radio and television broadcast but not the Internet, cable or satellite TV.

The case grew out of a decision by the Federal Communications Commission in 2006 that two broadcasts of the “Billboard Music Awards” show were indecent, though the agency levied no fines. Cher uttered one fleeting expletive beginning with “F,” and Nicole Richie one beginning with “S.”

Fox Broadcasting Co. and others appealed the decision, saying that the agency had changed its enforcement policy without warning and that the new ban was unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court in New York agreed, 2-1, throwing out the ban and sending the case back to the agency, which appealed to the Supreme Court.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press on Monday that he was pleased the justices stepped in. He said the appeals court had “put the commission in an untenable position” by giving it the responsibility to enforce indecency rules but not the tools to take action.

Still, there was widespread surprise that the court took the case, and there was speculation the justices might take a broader look at the issue of indecency in the media environment that has changed dramatically over the past three decades.

Fox Broadcasting Co. said the case gives the company “the opportunity to argue that the FCC’s expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today’s diverse media marketplace where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children’s television viewing.”

The FCC has authority to regulate speech on broadcast radio and television station, not cable and the Internet.

Cher…uttered a fleeting expletive.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download