Name of Project: Students’ Rights Duration: 3 weeks Subject/Course: Literacy Teacher(s): Ms. Jessica Folsom Grade Level: 8th Other subject areas to be included, if any: none Significant Content (CCSS and/or others): Common Core State Standards for the 3rd 9 weeks, 8th Grade Literacy, with a focus on Reading and Writing about Complex Texts, Research, Reporting, and Conducting Discussions. In particular, standards addressed include: W.8.1: Identify a topic that causes or has caused a debate in my school,

community, or society Choose a side of the argument and identify reasons that support my

choice Present my argument in a formal style

W.8.2: Select a topic and gather relevant information to share with my audience

W.8.5: Apply revision strategies (e.g. read aloud, checking for

misunderstandings, adding and deleting details) with the help of others

RL.8.10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the high end of grades 6­8 text complexity band independently and proficiently.

For a full list of related standards, please see Appendix A 21st Century Competencies (to be taught and assessed):

Collaboration Working cooperatively, effectively, flexibly, and respectfully with diverse teams Communication Oral & written communication, public speaking & presenting, listening Critical Thinking Reasoning, analyzing, interpreting Creativity/Innovation Personal expression, imagination, curiosity

Other Global awareness, media literacy, social, ethical and cross­cultural literacy

Project Summary:

Many times, students only have peripheral experience with the legal system through the involvement of family members or friends and therefore do not realize that the legal system exists in order to safeguard basic human rights. This unit narrows students’ focus to the issue of students’ rights, particularly those rights that restrict action or free expression. During the course of this unit, students will develop their preexisting argumentative reasoning skills through informal discussion and debate of ethical dilemmas, investigate the theme of morality as it appears in literature, research the rights they hold as students, and advocate for the protection of those rights through the creation of a public product. In participating in each of these learning experiences, students ideally will come to understand how rights can simultaneously restrict and protect freedom, and how individuals—both as citizens and as students—must work actively to protect those rights.

Driving Question: How are students’ rights negotiated both in and out of school, and what can students do to ensure that their rights are respected?

Part I: Entry Event: Ethical Dilemma(s) (What are rights, and how can they conflict?) Resources Needed

On­site people, facilities: Students, teacher Equipment: Whiteboard or Poster—something for recording students’ ideas Materials: Ethical Dilemma stories (online or printed—examples in Appendix B) Community Resources: None

Overview: Students, particularly at this age, often have a strong sense of morality and are very articulate about their views, particularly when presented in an informal discussion. The ethical dilemmas included here (Appendix B) are culled from classic presentations and can serve to instigate discussion. The focus of this entry event is to elicit students’ native understanding and record it. The goal is to engage students in authentic ethical discussions before introducing the academic tasks as such, and then to show them how academic standards come out of their own native practices. Successful recording will depend on the discussion, but the “Firelane” participation framework includes opportunities for “What makes you think that?” and “What were you convinced by?”­type questions, as well as allowing interjection of commentary on different aspects of the discussion. Thus, in recording students’ ideas, a teacher might record everything from rhetorical strategies (e.g. “gave a compelling example”) and presentation skills (e.g. “spoke

loudly and clearly”) to moral argument types (e.g. “individual rights are more important than group ideals”). In order to connect to the driving question, particular focus should be paid to “types” of arguments and potential conflicts such as group rights vs. individual.

Procedure:

Teacher reads an ethical dilemma (e.g. trolley problem) from prompt. Students discuss. Possible participation framework: Firelane

A “resolution” for the story is proposed (e.g. “I think the person should sacrifice one person to save the others”), either as dictated by the story/teacher, or emergent as students begin discussing alternatives.

Students move to one side of the room or the other, depending on whether they agree or disagree with the resolution.

Discussion continues. If a student’s opinion changes, he/she may change sides at any time.

When a student changes sides, discussion stops and the student is asked to provide a reason for the change of opinion.

Teacher begins to record reasoning on board, with particular focus on what caused a change of opinion.

Products: Observation wall, and beginning rubric

Reflection: “What makes a compelling argument?” Students answer using experience from activity (i.e. “What kinds of ideas

did people bring up that maybe made you change your mind?”) Beginning of class Word Wall / Concept Map (if done on white board,

record for later somehow (note taker? Poster?)) Reflection: “What are rights and how can they conflict?”

What kinds of issues come up when we’re talking about rights? In what ways do they need to be negotiated? (Group vs. individual?)

Rubric creation: “What do we want to take into the next task?” Explicit connection to next task (e.g. “Tomorrow we will read a short story

and begin to prepare for a debate, but we are going to use what we learned today to decide what kinds of things we need to include in the debate.”)

Teacher and students collaborate, using discussion observations, to make rubric for short story debate (which will be half the rubric for the final product)

Part II: Short Story & Debate

Public Audience (experts, audiences, or product users students will engage with during/at end of project): Students and teachers of other classes

Resources Needed

On­site people, facilities: Teacher, students Equipment: Projector, screen, laptop for teacher Materials: Short stories – PDF’s/ Printed copy (please see Appendix C for suggestions), papers/ index cards for students to record their discussion points, pencils, markers Community Resources: None

Overview: The middle school students are inherently inquisitive and enthusiastic to pose their opinions and arguments. The short stories to be used in this phase of the project are intended to facilitate analytical and critical thinking about ethical considerations—individual vs group rights, and elements of moral decision making. The purpose of the short stories is to generate an engaging debate fostering reasoning and communication skills of the students. The objective of this activity is to identify rights and recognize situations and ways in which they are negotiated. This will connect to the driving question, and, set the stage for the debate and trigger thoughtful questions— “What do you think?”, “Why do you say that?”, “Who do you think is right?”, “What are your reasons?”, and “How would you make a choice?”. Most importantly, in this phase all students will have read the same short story, and so will be familiar with the evidence available to both sides. This exercise, then, allows students to focus on using and interpreting evidence. Teacher may assess students on their ability to rationalize and oral expertise in delivering a well­crafted argument. The formation of groups in preparing the arguments for the debate, and the peer feedback are envisaged to enable collaboration. Each student in a group may adopt a particular role for the debate—opening statement presenter, topic presenter, rebuttal presenter and closing statement presenter. Throughout the process, the student­created rubric from the Entry Event can be used to help students assess themselves and their “teammates” in preparation for the debate. At the final debate, a copy of this rubric will be given to each audience member as a lens through which to provide more feedback.

(Sub)Project: How are rights negotiated?

Whole­Class Preparation: Students read a story (teacher­led, round robin, etc.) that features a

dilemma Reiteration of driving question: “How are rights negotiated?” (i.e. highlight

conflicts between individual rights, group expectations, etc.) Identify major players in the story / themes of individual rights vs. group.

Map these themes to Word Wall / Concept Map from Ethical Dilemma, or add new elements.

Introduce Debate stage Whole class discussion of rubric from ethical dilemma/what makes a

compelling argument/how to apply to debate assessment. Group Preparation:

Teacher divides students into groups (number depends on number of options)

Teacher explains format (opening statement, rebuttal, closing argument, etc.)

Depending on time available, students could either self­select for different debate roles (i.e. “opening statement”, “rebuttal”), or all prepare for each role and draw randomly on the day of the debate.

Teacher may provide students with graphic organizer (pros/cons) Students develop arguments in groups (Teacher may provide sentence

stems) Students rehearse arguments in front of their “teammates” at regular

intervals (every day/every other day) Teammates provide feedback for revision using class­developed rubric

Products:

Debate: Students invite audience to hear debate Audience is given copies of rubric that class devised in Part I. Structured whole­class debate Feedback from audience, with particular regard to rubric (may also include

feedback on rubric) Reflection:

Teacher reminds students of purpose/guiding question Students generate list of connections to real life “Why does this matter?”

Part III: Research

Resources Needed

On­site people, facilities: Students, teacher, librarian (if needed) Equipment: Individual laptops, Internet access Materials: Note­taking apparatus (notebook, graphic organizer, etc.) Community Resources: None

Overview:

Previous learning experiences ask students to consider theoretical and fictional ethical dilemmas. Because these dilemmas are fabricated, some students may struggle to see the applicability of these scenarios to their personal lives and/or immediate contexts (e.g., school, home, etc.). In Part III of the unit, students will research examples of students’ rights violations. The purpose of this research is to ground students’ prior classroom experiences and thinking in the “real” — to discover the specific rights they possess in school, to assess potential conflicts that may endanger those rights, and to determine what systems (if any) are in place to guarantee those rights are respected. Continuity between the abstracted academic forms (of writing and presentation) and the concrete stories (or news articles) is established through the student­created rubric. Before beginning research and splitting into groups based on interest, it may be necessary to brainstorm possible research topics with students. Topics may range from mandatory drug testing to unprovoked search and seizure, but ideally, students will conduct research on a variety of topics and therefore have a wealth of information to share with classmates during the subsequent jigsaw activity. The jigsaw activity presents students with an opportunity to synthesize their research, consolidate their thinking, and communicate orally with peers.

(Sub)Project: What are your rights, and in what ways might they be threatened?

Individual research with group support, group reporting: Students discuss possible research topics: “What do you care about?”,

divide into groups according to interest (note: may divide first if even numbers are desired for jigsaw)

Students select topics of research (e.g., search and seizure) Students research topics of interest

Major questions: “What are your rights?” and “What conflicts arise?” Research mediums: EasyBib Research, Edmodo website Students record sources of information Students summarize information (graphic organizer?)

Jigsaw: Students reorganize into different groups Each group consists of one student from each original group (or

just a mixture of different research topics, if groups aren’t even) Present knowledge gained during research

Return to whole­class discussion. Teacher calls on students to report on others’ research findings (notecards?)

Group recording of major findings (same Word Wall / Concept Map, or new one with connections to original, when applicable)

Products:

Reflection: Teacher and students return to rubric, add new parameters using

experience from research for use in evaluating final products

Part IV: Final Public Audience (experts, audiences, or product users students will engage with during/at end of project): Teachers, students of other classes, school principal, families of students. Resources Needed

On­site people, facilities: Teacher, students, school library Equipment: Computer/ laptop for teacher and students, projector, screen, smartphone (for recording videos depending on product) Materials: PDF of the prologue of the book I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai, audio­visual (teacher may select any video), information on Malala – wiki link (please see Appendix D); depend on products decided by students (paper, pens, pencils, markers, posters) Community Resources: None

Overview: In the final phase of the project students will listen to the story of Malala Yousafzai—the youngest Nobel Peace Prize laureate—followed by a relevant short video. The purpose is to inspire and induce students to initiate a discussion of one person’s fight for the rights of many; the courage and the persistence with which she reached out to the world to bring into limelight the harsh reality faced by female students in her region; and, the responsibility she shouldered attempting to make a difference. Hopefully the example will provide them an idea and encouragement to plan their final product—take action and voice propositions ensuring respect for rights. The product depends on students’ choice, and may include an awareness campaign (e.g. posters, blog) or a proposed amendment to school policy (e.g. letter to the school president). The medium is up to the students—a blog, a letter, a Facebook/Twitter page, posters, power point presentation, Prezi or recorded videos. The story of Malala and the creation of the final project will include a more global aspect to the unit as well as promoting media literacy and other 21st Century competencies.

Final Project: What can you do to ensure your rights are respected?

Creating final products Mini­entry event: Teacher will read portions from the prologue of the book

I Am Malala by Malala Yousafzai may also provide selective information from wiki

Video on Malala — an example of taking action Discussion of Word Walls / Concept Maps generated in earlier sections How do specific examples line up with broader concepts? Discussion of class­developed rubric

Products:

Teacher and students brainstorm media for taking action (blog, letter, etc.)

Students decide what product they will produce for final project Projects ask students to apply knowledge and may require more

research In creating projects, students should practice 21st century skills

APPENDIX A: Common Core State Standards addressed in this unit may include the following [note: the addressing of certain standards may depend on choice of texts for each part of the unit plan]: READING COMPLEX TEXTS: RL.8.10: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the high end of grades 6­8 text complexity band independently and proficiently. RI.8.10: by the end of the year, read and comprehend literary nonfiction at the high end of the grades 6­8 text complexity band proficiently.

Closely read complex grade level texts. (S) Use reading strategies, including identification of key ideas and details, author’s craft and structure, the integration of knowledge and ideas, ask questions, make connection, take notes, make inferences, visualize, and re­read to help me comprehend complex texts. (S) Re­read text to clarify ideas, find information, discover author’s insights. (S)

WRITING ABOUT TEXTS: W.8.2:

Select a topic and gather relevant information to share with my audience (R) Define common organizational/formatting structures and determine the structure(s) that will allow me to organize my information best (R) Analyze the information, identify vocabulary relevant to my topic and organize information into broader categories using my chosen structure(s) (S) Present my information in a formal style that includes an introduction that previews what is to follow, supporting details, varied transitions, and a concluding statement/section to support the information presented (P)

W.8.1: Identify a topic that causes or has caused a debate in my school, community, or society (K) Acknowledge counterclaims in my arguments (K) Choose a side of the argument and identify reasons that support my choice. (R) Determine the credibility of a source and the accuracy of the details presented in the source. (R)

Support my argument with textual evidence found in credible sources. (R) Present my argument in a formal style that includes an introduction, supporting details with transitions, and provide a concluding statement or section that supports my argument. (P)

W.8.4: Identify the writing style (argument, informative/explanatory, or narrative) that best fits my task, purpose, and audience. (K) Use organizational/formatting structures to develop my writing ideas. (S) Compose a clear and logical piece of writing that demonstrates my understanding of a specific writing style. (P)

W.8.5: Use prewriting strategies to formulate ideas (S) Recognize that a well­developed piece of writing requires more than one draft (K) Apply revision strategies (e.g. read aloud, checking for misunderstandings, adding and deleting details) with the help of others (S) Edit my writing by checking for errors in capitalization, punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. (S) Analyze my writing to determine if my purpose and audience have been fully addressed and revise when necessary. (R) Prepare multiple drafts using revisions and edits to develop and strengthen my writing. (P) Recognize when revising, editing, and rewriting are not enough, and I need to try a new approach. (R)

W.8.6: Determine the most efficient technology application for presenting the relationships between information and ideas. (R) Use technology to interact and collaborate with others to produce and publish writing. (S) Use technology produce and publish writing. (P)

W.8.9: Determine textual evidence that supports my analysis, reflection, and/or research. (R)

Compose written responses and include textual evidence to strengthen my analysis, reflection, and/or research (P)

W.8.10: Recognize that different writing tasks require varied time frames to complete. (K) Determine a writing format/style to fit my task, purpose, and/or audience. (R) Write for a variety of reasons (P)

RESEARCH PROJECT: Integrate Knowledge from Sources when Composing RL/RI.8.1:

Analyze an author’s words and determine the textual evidence that most strongly supports both explicit and inferential questions.

RI.8.2: Compose an objective summary stating the key points of the text without adding my own opinions and judgments. (P)

RL.8.2: Compose an objective summary stating the key points of the text. (P)

RI.8.3: Evaluate how an author makes connections and distinctions through comparisons, analogies and/or categories in a text. (R)

RL.8.4: Analyze why authors choose to include particular analogies and allusions in text. (R)

RI.8.6: Analyze the techniques the author uses to respond to conflicting evidence; support your analysis with textual examples. (R)

RL.8.6: Analyze how the differing points of view of the characters vs. the audience/reader create various effects (e.g. dramatic irony, suspense, humor); support your analysis with examples. (R)

RI.8.8: Recognize when an author introduces irrelevant evidence to his/her argument. (R)

RL.8.9: Describe how myths, traditional stories, or religious works are rendered new by modern works of fiction. (R)

RI.8.9:

Describe how one author’s interpretation of a topic can be different from another author’s depending on how the facts are interpreted. (R)

RL/RI.8.1: Read text closely and find answers explicitly stated in text as well as answers that require an inference. (S)

W.8.9: Determine textual evidence that supports my analysis, reflection, and/or research. (R) Compose written responses and include textual evidence to strengthen my analysis, reflection, and/or research (P)

W.8.7: Distinguish how research differs from other types of writing. (K) Focus my research around a central question that is provided or determine my own research worthy questions (S) Choose several sources and gather information to answer my research question. (R) Analyze the information found in my sources to determine if it provides enough support to answer my question. (R) Create additional focused questions that relate to my original topic to further investigate my research. (P)

W.8.8: Determine the credibility and accuracy of a source by reviewing who wrote it, when it was written, and why it was written. (R) Use search terms effectively to gather information needed to support my research. (S) Determine when my research data or facts must be quoted in my writing. (R) Avoid plagiarism by paraphrasing and/or summarizing my research findings. (S) Follow a standard format for citation to create a bibliography for sources that I paraphrased or quoted in my writing. (K)

RL/RI.8.1­10 RL/RI.8.1:

Analyze an author’s words and determine the textual evidence that most strongly supports both explicit and inferential questions. (R) Identify explicit textual evidence and inference (K) Explain how a reader uses textual evidence to reach a logical conclusion. (R)

RL/RI.8.2:

Analyze how supporting ideas contribute to the development of the theme or central ideas over the course of a text. (R) Identify theme and central idea in a text. (K)

RI.8.2:

Determine how an author’s use of details conveys two or more central ideas in a text. (R)

RL.8.2: Determine how key events, character’s actions and interactions, and setting develop over the course of the text to contribute to the theme. (R)

RL.8.3: Analyze how a particular line of dialogue and/or incidents in a story or drama propels the action. (R) Analyze how a particular line of dialogue and/or incidents in a story or drama reveals aspects of a character. (R) Analyze how a particular line of dialogue and/or incidents in a story or drama provokes a decision. (R) Identify particular lines of dialogue and/or incidents in a story or drama that propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision. (K) Recognize how making a change to one line of a dialogue or one incident of a story or drama could affect the actions, aspects of a character, or decisions. (R)

RI.8.3: Analyze connections and distinctions between individuals, events, and/or ideas in a text. (R) Analyze how an author makes connections and distinctions between individuals, ideas, or events through comparisons. (R) Explain how the individuals, events, and/or ideas in a text affect one another. (R)

RL/RI.8.4 Identify various forms of figurative language. (K) Distinguish between literal language and figurative language.(K) Recognize the difference between denotative meanings and connotative meanings. (K)

Identify analogies and allusions. (K)

RI.8.4: Analyze why authors choose words and phrases, including analogies and allusions to set the tone and create an overall meaning and mood for the reader. (R) Recognize words that have technical meaning and understand their purpose in a specific text. (R)

RL.8.4: Recognize the difference between denotative meanings and connotative meanings. (K) Analyze why authors choose specific words to evoke a particular meaning or tone. (R)

RL/RI.8.5: Infer why an author chose to present his/her text using a particular structure. (R) Compare and contrast the structures found in two or more texts. (R) Analyze the structure of a specific paragraph in a text and determine how this paragraph helps to develop or refine a key concept. (R) Analyze and explain how the role of particular sentences helps to develop and refine the author’s key concept. (R)

RI.8.6: Compare and contrast the author’s evidence and/or viewpoints to any conflicting evidence and/or viewpoints. (R) Identify author’s point of view as how the author feels about the situation/topic of a text. (K) Determine an author’s point of view (What do I know about the author’s opinions, values, and/or beliefs?) and explain his/her purpose for writing the text. (R)

RL.8.6 Contrast the characters and audience/reader’s point of view in a text. (R) Recognize how the points of view of characters and audience or reader can be different. (K) Identify conflicting evidence or viewpoints presented in a given text. (K)

RL/RI.8.7: Evaluate why directors choose to stay faithful or depart from a text and/or script. (R)

Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of presenting a topic or idea in different mediums. (R) Identify the different media formats through which informational text can be presented.(K) Identify how authors use different mediums of presentation (e.g., video diary, Power Point, visual display). (K) Compare and contrast a filmed or live production of a story or dram and the original text and script. (R)

RI.8.8: Trace and evaluate an argument using the evidence an author provides and determine if the evidence provided is relevant and sufficient enough to support the claim. (R) Identify the claims of an argument presented by an author. (K) Identify claims that are supported by fact(s) and those that are not (K)

RL/RI.8.9 Identify how two or more texts provide conflicting information on the same topic. (K) Identify themes, patterns of events and character types in myths, traditional stories, and religious works. (K)

RL.8.9: Analyze how themes in modern fiction are taken from myths, traditional stories, or religious works. (R) Analyze how patterns of events in modern fiction are taken from myths, traditional stories, religious works. ( R ) Analyze how character types in modern fiction are taken from myths, traditional stories, religious works. ( R )

RI.8.9: Analyze how authors interpret and emphasize different evidence when writing about the same topic. (R) Compare and contrast how two or more texts communicate the same topic. (R)

REPORTING FINDINGS (throughout): SL.8.4:

Support my claims or findings with relevant evidence, sound valid reasoning, and well­chosen details (S)

Present my information using appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation (P) Determine salient points and emphasize them when presenting my claims and findings (R)

SL.8.5:

Determine in my presentation when to integrate multimedia and visual displays to clarify information, strengthen claims, and add interest (R) Incorporate multimedia and visual displays in a presentation to clarify information, strengthen claims, and add interest (P) Identify parts of my presentation, including claims, findings, and salient points that need clarification(K)

SL.8.6: Adapt speech to a given context or task (R) Compose a formal speech that demonstrates a command of grade 8 Language standards. (P) Identify formal and informal settings (K) Determine if formal or informal speech is appropriate in the context of a given situation (R)

CITE EVIDENCE (throughout): RL/RI.8.1:

Analyze an author’s words and determine the textual evidence that most strongly supports both explicit and inferential questions. (R) Identify explicit textual evidence and inference (K) Explain how a reader uses textual evidence to reach a logical conclusion. (R) Read text closely and find answers explicitly stated in text as well as answers that require an inference. (S)

CONDUCT DISCUSSIONS (throughout): SL.8.1:

Collaborate to track progress and deadlines (R) Review and/or research the material to be discussed and determine key pints and/or central ideas. (R)

Review components of a collegial discussion and planning (K) Recognize when the discussion is off topic (R) Define the rules and roles for collaborative discussion. (K) Justify ideas and responses shared with evidence (R) Come prepared with key points and textual evidence to contribute to a discussion. (S) Participate in discussion by posing questions, responding to questions, and elaborating on my own ideas and/or the ideas of others. (S) Make relevant observations and use ideas and comments to bring discussion back on topic. (S) Review and evaluate key ideas presented by others, integrate them with my own when warranted, and justify my own views based on evidence introduced by others (R) Create questions and locate key textual evidence to contribute to a discussion on the given topic, text, or issue (P)

APPENDIX B: Some Moral Dilemmas The following examples are adapted from: http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm; see original source for discussion. Note also: These are just some examples, of which there are hundreds on the internet. For a print version, try “101 Ethical Dilemmas” by Martin Cohen.

1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

Robert Heinlein (1907­1988), The Libertarian in the Lifeboat

2. A Father's Agonizing Choice

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

3. Sophie's Choice, not in Grassian.

In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 ­­ the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not

being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?

4. The Trolley Problem, not in Grassian. Suggested by Philippa Foot (1920­2010), daughter of Esther, the daughter of President Grover Cleveland, but of British birth because of her father, William Sidney Bence Bosanquet.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

5. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom, with parts cut out in the 2nd edition; they seem to have gotten removed to avoid unintentionally humorous overtones. However, Grassian is not responsible for the somewhat ridiculous nature of the dilemma. It goes back to Philippa Foot.

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Since the fat man is said to be "leading" the group, he is responsible for their predicament and reasonably should volunteer to be blown up. The dilemma becomes more acute if we substitute a pregnant woman for the fat man. She would have been urged by the others to go first out of the cave. We can also make the dilemma more acute by substituting a knife for the dynamite. Hikers are not likely to just happen to be carrying around a stick of dynamite (federal authorites may be interested in this), and setting it off in the cave could just as easily kill everyone, or cause a cave­in, than just remove the fat man. Instead, one of our explorers or hikers is a hunter who always carries a knife, and who is experienced with dismembering game animals. The other hikers may not want to watch.

6. The Tortured Child.

Dostoyevsky, who has in these pages come in for comment in relation to Existentialism and atheism, imagines a classic right vs. good dilemma:

"Tell me yourself ­­ I challenge you: let's assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let's say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don't lie!"

"No I would not," Alyosha said softly. [Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, 1880, translated by Andrew H. MacAndrew, Bantam Books, 1970, p.296]

9. A Callous Passerby

Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold ­­ he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation ["Good Samaritan" laws] as well?

10. The Last Episode of Seinfeld, not in Grassian.

The cast of Seinfeld, Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer, have a layover in a small New England town. They witness a robbery in broad daylight. The robber has his hand in his pocket, and the victim shouts that the man has a gun. As soon as the robber runs away, a policeman appears on the scene; but instead of pursuing the robber, he arrests Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer for having violated the new "Good Samaritan" law of the town. Since the four of them spent the time of the robbery making fun of the victim, who was fat, their role in the matter doesn't look good, and at their trial everyone who has ever felt wronged by them in the course of the television series testifies against them. They are convicted. Is this just? What were they supposed to do during the robbery? Should they have rushed the robber, just in case he didn't really have a gun?

11. A Poisonous Cup of Coffee, with Jane and Debbie added for the sake of gender equality. However, Grassian is not responsible for this dilemma either. It goes back to Judith Jarvis Thomson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has "Alfred" and "Burt" intentionally and incidentally poisoning their wives, respectively. The principle

here, as in the previous two or three dilemmas, turns on the difference between wrongs of commission and wrongs of omission.

Tom[/Jane], hating his[/her] wife[/husband] and wanting her[/him] dead, puts poison in her[/his] coffee, thereby killing her[/him]. Joe[/Debbie] also hates his[/her] wife[/husband] and would like her[/him] dead. One day, Joe's[/Debbie's] wife[/husband] accidentally puts poison in her[/his] coffee, thinking it's cream. Joe[/Debbie] has the antidote, but he[/she] does not give it to her[/him]. Knowing that he[/she] is the only one who can save her[/him], he[/she] lets her[/him] die. Is Joe's[/Debbie's] failure to act as bad as Tom's[/Jane's] action?

APPENDIX D: Resources for final products phase Malala Yousafzai: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai Videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIqOhxQ0­H8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l54iRPXtpjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpUEqtvuC0M