General Guidelines

In Unit 3 we will continue to examine the ways in which authors attempt to shape public opinion, this time by reading and discussing the controversy surrounding a contemporary work of fiction, the story (and movie) "Brokeback Mountain" by Annie Proulx.

Engaging in a recent Austin debate about whether the story "Brokeback Mountain" should be taught to high-school seniors at St. Andrew's Episcopal School -- a controversy covered by John Spong in the September 2006 issue of Texas Monthly -- you will challenge specific critics and/or defenders of the story to an argument about its social value or lack thereof. Your goal is to determine whether the story should be taught in a twelfth-grade English class. To these ends, we will pay close attention to the various arguments the story is making, or seems to be making (including, perhaps, arguments the author might not even intend or be aware of); the social and ethical issues it addresses and controversies it is engaged in (again, whether intended by the author or not); the rhetorical strategies its author uses; and the responses different readers have had to this story. This final unit will culminate with your third major paper: a reader response/proposal argument. This paper requires only a final draft (Paper 3.1: 500-600 words; 5% of course grade).

Same-Sex Marriage Bans and the Effects on Heterosexual Couples

On February 12, 2007, the Indiana State Senate passed a joint resolution defining marriage as consisting only of a man and a woman. The Senate voted 39-10 in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 7, which follows this same definition of marriage. If identical legislation passed the House, the Indiana voters would face a constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot. The marriage amendment is made up of two parts, the first part states marriage may only consist of a man and a woman; the second part prohibits the interpretation of state law to grant the rights of marriage to unmarried couples or groups.

Keep It Informal

The in-class presentations of your Paper 2 Problem-Based Arguments are largely informal. You do not need to stand up before the class; nor do you need to prepare a speech. Consider your presentation and the discussion that follows a conversation. In this conversation, you will share your ideas and the rest of us will respond by offering ways to clarify, strengthen, or complicate some those ideas. Don't worry about sounding brilliant or certain. Rather, just worry about being clear and direct. And keep in mind that you are testing your ideas, which might continue to develop, even change some, between the first draft and the final draft. Also, don't worry so much about reading everything from your first draft; rather, you might refer to your draft or other notes, or speaking points, in order to your presentation more conversational and engaging. Each of you will have about five minutes to present, thus giving us about ten minutes for response and discussion.

Links to the below sections:

• General Guidelines
• Important Dates
• Goals of a Problem-Based Argument
• Planning Purpose and Audience
• Planning Your Line of Argument
• Allocating Space and Planning the Arrangement
• Adopting an Appropriate Style
• Format

For the second major paper you will draft and revise a public policy argument concerning the topic finally selected by the class (one of many topics proposed by the class). The topic: any controversy surrounding U.S. laws pertaining to illegal drugs. As discussed so far in class, this topic addresses any number of ongoing debates, not limited to the following: whether to legalize and/or decriminalize marijuana for medicinal use; how best to control drug trafficking; whether to reassess mandatory sentencing for nonviolent offenders; how best to approach drug treatment, prevention, or prohibition; etc.

Step 1: Focus on a Particular Controversy/Problem

While you all are writing on the general issue of drug laws, each of you is exploring some particular subtopic (controversy/problem) related to this larger issue. For example, some of you are focusing on the controversy surrounding medicinal marijuana. Some of you are focused on the debate over how best to control drug trafficking; some on the debate over alternative sentencing for drug offenders; and some on the controversy surrounding legalization, decriminalization, and/or reclassification of certain drugs. Others, still, are focused on other equally interesting and controversial topics/controversies related to the larger issue. Consider your focus, then, the particular controversy/debate/problem you are exploring. And formulate your focus as a statement of the controversy/debate/problem, as follows:

General Requirements

The Paper 2 first draft, a required part of your Paper 2 project and in-class presentation, counts 10% of your final course grade. This draft will feature the following four sections (for a total of 700-900 words, excluding the Works Cited):

(1) Revised case narrative (200-250 words)
-- see "Allocating Space" section of Paper 2 Assignment
-- see student sample case narratives

(2) Statement of your focus question/problem, your position, your main supporting reasons, your argument’s exigence (200-250 words)
-- see "Allocating Space" section of Paper 2 Assignment

Daily Assignment #8 (and 5% of course grade):
Case Narrative Draft

Working from the cases you have so far researched on the issue of drug laws -- cases you have now presented to the class -- commit to a single case (either yours or someone
else's) that illustrates a clear controversy, that is, a debate between different individuals and/or groups concerning some particular aspect(s) of the issue. Make sure your case features at least two competing positions, one of which you perhaps find more or less persuasive.

Before drafting your narrative, review the student sample case narratives and MLA documentation guidelines.

Problem-Based Argument Resources

- Paper 2 First Draft Assignment
- Paper 2 Guidelines & Final Draft Assignment
- Formulating Your Inquiry guidelines
- Student Sample Arguments

Below are a few student sample case narratives from last semester -- the first two of which I provided you hard copies in class. They should serve as useful models for your own case narrative. The only difference between these samples and your own narrative is that these samples do not identify the sources from which the student compiled her information about the case. Your case narrative, however, will identify your sources.

So, In the body of your narrative, identify the publication date and source (for now don't worry about including in the narrative itself the author and the article's title/headline).

Following your case narrative, provide a Works Cited, listing each source you used in compiling your information and constructing your narrative. With each source include the following information (in this order):

• author (last name first [e.g., Smith, John])
• article title (in quotation marks)
• publication (underlined or italicized)
• publication date
• database or search engine used to find article
• most recent date you've accessed the article online
• URL (if online article is available to the general public)

Following MLA style documentation, go ahead and alphabetize your entries by the author's last name. If the author is unnamed, then start your entry with the article's title (and alphabetize based on the article title's first letter, excluding "the" or "a").

Here are two sample entries, the first for a newspaper article, the second for a scholarly journal:

Cobb, Kim. "Retirees Help Defeat Gay-Marriage Ban; in Arizona, the Campaign Against the Proposal Focused on the Elderly Heterosexuals." The Houston Chronicle 12 Nov. 2006, sec. A: 6. LexisNexis Academic. 21 Nov. 2007.

Gallagher, Mary P. “As Same-sex Couples Go Legal, Legal Questions Swirl.” New Jersey Law Journal (June 2004). Academic OneFile. 14 Nov. 2007

Below are the spring 2008 partnerships between University of Texas at Austin students and Houston's Worthing High School students. Partners are arranged alphabetically according to the UT students' last names; the high-school students' names are listed on the right. Because the college students outnumber the participating high-school students, a couple Worthing High students are each paired with two UT students.

Adam Aslam << >> Joy James
Abbie Cheney << >> Mariah Stewart
Steven Compean (and Eric Yoon) << >> Oscar Dupree
Alyx Deveaux << >> Symone Bell
Lyli Gonzalez << >> Sandra Garcia