Energy & Place
The essential questions to this project are as followed:
*In defining “impact” you can think about it in terms of the impact on the culture, the health of individuals, the land, the
economy, technology and scientific progress, future generations, and/or the sustainability of the resources of a specific
location or the planet as a whole.
**“Sense of Place” is a concept that describes the quality of people’s relationship with a place. However, you will
develop a definition of sense of place that most resonates with you. Some questions you may consider include: Does
sense of place include a connection to the natural world separate from people? Does it include people? Does it include a local sense of place or global? Do you define your sense of place as one of economic positioning, social class, geographic location, and/or connection to community and people? Do you define it as very particular spot that holds special meaning to you? Does your connection to land shape your identity? Do you feel rootless or disconnected from community and/or place?
*In defining “impact” you can think about it in terms of the impact on the culture, the health of individuals, the land, the
economy, technology and scientific progress, future generations, and/or the sustainability of the resources of a specific
location or the planet as a whole.
**“Sense of Place” is a concept that describes the quality of people’s relationship with a place. However, you will
develop a definition of sense of place that most resonates with you. Some questions you may consider include: Does
sense of place include a connection to the natural world separate from people? Does it include people? Does it include a local sense of place or global? Do you define your sense of place as one of economic positioning, social class, geographic location, and/or connection to community and people? Do you define it as very particular spot that holds special meaning to you? Does your connection to land shape your identity? Do you feel rootless or disconnected from community and/or place?
Artist Statement
In my visual piece, I incorporated pictures from my cabin, which I talked a lot about in my paper. I also added images that express human impact. The idea behind the poster was to show the natural beauty of the world next to the manmade and human impacts on the world that are slowly destroying it. In my essay I write about this idea that the earth has this intrinsic value and with that, we should respect it. However, as a society we are only using the earth for our benefits and not giving back, which is slowly killing our planet. To tie this idea together with the images, I chose to use the quote by Walt Kelly.
To make my poster cohesive, I ensured that all the pictures varied in color, image “topic” and shapes but at the same time having the pictures unified as a whole. In order to do this, I had to go through several drafts with having different images and putting images in certain orders. I also struggled with the placement and color of the quote because in some images, the words were very difficult to read. However, with refinement I found a way to use black and white font in an organized manner to ensure that the audience can clearly read the quote.
The main influence of my poster was my cabin in Steamboat Colorado. This cabin was built by my family over 45 years ago and holds many precious memories. Because I have “grown up” in this cabin, I have been able to see the slow, gradual changes that are happening around the area. For instance, next to us an excessively large home was built that blocks stunning views from our cabin. And even more unfortunately, the owners of this home come out maybe once a year. To me this is a waste of land and is an invasion of my home and memories. In addition, many other oversized, unused homes are being built along with campsites by the lake we see daily while up there. Seeing these changes upset me and make me want to make others aware of the selfish changes we are making to the last of these secluded lands.
In my visual piece, I incorporated pictures from my cabin, which I talked a lot about in my paper. I also added images that express human impact. The idea behind the poster was to show the natural beauty of the world next to the manmade and human impacts on the world that are slowly destroying it. In my essay I write about this idea that the earth has this intrinsic value and with that, we should respect it. However, as a society we are only using the earth for our benefits and not giving back, which is slowly killing our planet. To tie this idea together with the images, I chose to use the quote by Walt Kelly.
To make my poster cohesive, I ensured that all the pictures varied in color, image “topic” and shapes but at the same time having the pictures unified as a whole. In order to do this, I had to go through several drafts with having different images and putting images in certain orders. I also struggled with the placement and color of the quote because in some images, the words were very difficult to read. However, with refinement I found a way to use black and white font in an organized manner to ensure that the audience can clearly read the quote.
The main influence of my poster was my cabin in Steamboat Colorado. This cabin was built by my family over 45 years ago and holds many precious memories. Because I have “grown up” in this cabin, I have been able to see the slow, gradual changes that are happening around the area. For instance, next to us an excessively large home was built that blocks stunning views from our cabin. And even more unfortunately, the owners of this home come out maybe once a year. To me this is a waste of land and is an invasion of my home and memories. In addition, many other oversized, unused homes are being built along with campsites by the lake we see daily while up there. Seeing these changes upset me and make me want to make others aware of the selfish changes we are making to the last of these secluded lands.
Sense of Place Essay
The Wilting Future
Tall, green, grass brushes my legs as I walk through one of many abundant open fields. I am surrounded by the trickling pitter-patter of the creek and the faint sound of cattle roaming through the lush, vibrant, green sea of growing blades. The sun projects its heat and glistening, taunting rays of light as it towers over the trees— skyscrapers that cast their long shadows over my pulsing body. The secluded area settles into its day enjoying every moment as if it might be its last. There are few houses or signs of life around; of the houses, only three are occupied. All that encompasses me are the unappreciated mountain flowers stretching their heads to gain recognition, the lingering history of our cabin and the gentle mountains bearing over the landscape.
The cabin is a popular and well-known place among my family. It was built in 1969 over the span of ten years with the worn hands of my grandfather and dad. Each summer was spent hauling trees, rocks, bricks, and hopeful dreams to the 1.3 acres bought for only $3,000, a cheap price to pay for the treasurer of lingering moments. Each movement had a plan and every resource these founders took was never put to waste; consuming only enough trees and aging rocks to build this three-bedroom home. This tucked-away, remote land spoke to my family in a way none other did. Perhaps it was the lack of human activity and presence of buildings. Or perhaps it was the idea of setting a small place aside in this daunting globe we call home; never taking much, just what we need to be disconnected from society and reconnected to reality.
These old stripped trees that were once placed one-by-one to form a simple home now hold the heat of the crackling fire in the cold, overbearing winter. Through the frosted, chilled windows there is nothing but a pure-white blanket covering the life outside telling us to stay indoors. The old, black, red and avocado speckled carpet humors us as we laugh at the color and see the never disappearing strand-like hair that once belonged to our past and present furry friends. The sun-bleached deck supports the old memories of children running and playing, the current sound of dragging feet of early morning risers, the drying towels from the day at the lake, the swing that holds long conversations at dusk and the lonely sleepers looking up at the silent starry night.
The antique stone fireplace with the mustard-stained glass shows the dedication of my grandfather placing each rock with a specific purpose and not letting one fall out of sight. It brings flashbacks of making s’mores in the burning heat of summer, playing mindless board games in the chilling winter, and unforgiving cold nights of arrival with nothing but the heat of the dancing flames to keep us warm. It reminds me of the times when we would cram six cousins into a space made for four while watching the golden-orange hue blur as our eyelids fell. And I can still see the lot of us chopping, gathering and carrying wood to feed the fire that burns, slowly heating up the cabin room-by-room like a heart beating blood to each vessel.
An old gravel road carries few passengers through the day to the tree-fenced humble shore of Pearl Lake; home of fish, dying trees, secret paths and memories. The fragile glass of the clear water reflects a perfect image of the sun setting, lighting the hillside on fire with the last breaths of the trees fighting to stay alive. Unfortunately, these soldiers were not strong enough to fight the recurring enemy of the Pine Bark Beetle.
The Pine Bark Beetle has invaded the hills and mountainsides of Steamboat for over four years. They are the trees’ cancer slowly killing them while we can only helplessly watch them die. The insects´ greed not only brings death to the natural setting of our cabin but kills the ongoing memory of skiing through the snowy pine trees and climbing to the top of Grouse Mountain having an Empire State Building view of the uninhabited, pristine country of fighting trees, chimney smoke and the lonely, single, winding road leading to town. These trees have not given up hope and neither will I.
****
Every winter my family and I force our heavy ski boots on, strap our long skins onto the underbelly of our skis, throw our winter shields of mismatched puffy clothes on and start our journey through the thicket of trees. The sun slowly beats on our backs as we head up the mountain. Each stride I make impacts the snow and slowly tires me. It seems like the impossible journey. The closer I get, the bigger and steeper this watching mountain becomes. I grow weary. My legs shake like the autumn leaves as I push onward wishing I were at the top. My dog runs past me hardly sinking into the snow. Why can’t I do that? Every switchback is like a guessing game. I tell myself “just one more switchback” only to learn that the mountain is just playing around teasing me with, what seems like, the everlasting array of switchbacks. I want to quit, give up and sit down but there is something saying “just a little bit further. It’s worth it.” So I allow the peak to continue its comedy act and trudge on. I am angry at the world and wishing for hot tea, a blanket and good movie. I thought this was supposed to be fun… regardless, I push those thoughts aside and seek for the silver lining. As I make my heavy strides, I breathe in-and-out the cold, biting air like a horse in its final leg of the race, I see that I am almost there. I push myself with everything I have and as I approach the edge of the mountain, I drop to my knees in amazement and sit there silently with only the sound of my pounding chest as the view dominates my mind. This time, there is no punch line.
Exalted short-lived moments, like mine on the mountain top, are unusual. Where we are stopped in our tracks and taken aback by the beauty of the world where everything fades away and for the slightest of moments in time you see how small you are and how big the world is around you. You are indulged in the importance of the world letting us live here. But that is not enough. Any one of those moments rarely occur and quickly dissipate in the busy days of our lives causing us to forget what is so important to remember: We live on earth and it is not ours to do what we please and destroy, but it is ours to protect and admire.
There are no words to truly explain the beauty of this view. Delicate snow cascades over fields as far as the eye can see. The once towering trees are now so small dancing in the symphonic breeze. I catch my breath only to have it taken away once again. The hustle and bustle down below seems as though it has frozen in time. I escape from my always haunting fears and live in the joy of now. There is a peace and silence up here that I gain from no other place in the world. Not even the birds sing. All that remains is the trifling sound of my breath and the wind brushing my revealed skin as if reminding me of its terrific power. As I stand there I am reminded of a quote written by Paul Newman, “We are such spendthrifts with our lives, the trick of living is to slip on and off the planet with the least fuss you can muster. I’m not running for sainthood. I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer, who puts back into the soil what he takes out.”
There is a difference to me from using the planet’s resources as a means of survival and using the planet for selfish purposes. As a society, we have reached the point in life where we take what we want and don’t give anything back. But how does one continue taking when there is nothing left? We simply cannot live life believing that everything is ours for the taking and there is nothing we have to do in return. Does it not perplex people that animals are disappearing, nature is wilting and that we are slowly feeling suffocated in this once big world? Does it not concern one that it is hot and sunny in December but snows in May? If there were ever a time to ask questions and reflect on our actions, it would be now. We as humans are becoming nature’s biggest and greatest fear. As a human race we are slowly imposing on the last of the natural reserves taking everything for our consumption, leaving only the small traces of the breaking, hurting and pleading earth. And as a society there is only a single passed mind-set of “go” and “use”. We take what we want when we want it. We are no longer the farmer but only the consumer as earth is just an object to us ready for use at any time. The place that gives us a home and chance at life has no value in the majority’s eyes.
****
After some time, we turn back. I remove my skins and put on the layers I had shed previously and begin to head down the mountain. I quickly pick up speed and once again realize that I am not the one in control. Up here I must bend to nature’s lay of the land and watch myself as I fly past each tree. We reach the clearing; it is all downhill from here. I take a deep breath and plunge down the mountain side. My skis serve as the compass as I gain momentum and feel the rush of the stinging air. I begin to turn and cut into the fresh, unscathed powder and feel a smile grow on my face. There is no one to worry about but myself up here. I slow as the peak begins to ebb and turn back one last time. I take a final glance of the mountain top slowly gaining distance and as I look back, I get this growing pit of fear in my stomach. Will this still be here when I return? How many more times will I get this chance? Have we given this sacred place a limitation on life without our knowing? I choke back this fear and tell myself “it will be okay”. But deep down I know differently.
I’d like to believe that the extending hills, forest of flowers and the old roots of the lanky trees that embrace me in my coming will remain when I leave. We, as people, come and go. But the place we call home stays. It remains in the location we build it and has no choice to run and hide, much like nature. It was given its one and only destination with no other opportunity to move. And unlike us, nature cannot run from its problems. It is forced to face every consequence of our wrong doings and break with our ever so dominate presence of self-indulgence. Unfortunately we go on to think that we cannot suffer from the damage we caused. We plan for the future, but only for our future. We dream of the luxury of having power, water and anything at the reach of our intact fingers. But there is no charmed crystal ball or card readings necessary to tell the future for us. Because of our insensitivity, earth and the growing life within it have numbered days. The mindset of invincibility is just a clouded illusion. We as a human race are a self-destructive time bomb running as fast as we can from the detonation. Sadly running from your problems will solve nothing and to make matters worse, the only problem we are running from is ourselves.
This long standing cabin grows weaker in its structure but stronger in its value. It is the one place I find peace, relaxation and myself. It is the one place that awakens every inch of my body when breathing the untouched air. It is the one place I long to be. It is the only place that whispers home
The Wilting Future
Tall, green, grass brushes my legs as I walk through one of many abundant open fields. I am surrounded by the trickling pitter-patter of the creek and the faint sound of cattle roaming through the lush, vibrant, green sea of growing blades. The sun projects its heat and glistening, taunting rays of light as it towers over the trees— skyscrapers that cast their long shadows over my pulsing body. The secluded area settles into its day enjoying every moment as if it might be its last. There are few houses or signs of life around; of the houses, only three are occupied. All that encompasses me are the unappreciated mountain flowers stretching their heads to gain recognition, the lingering history of our cabin and the gentle mountains bearing over the landscape.
The cabin is a popular and well-known place among my family. It was built in 1969 over the span of ten years with the worn hands of my grandfather and dad. Each summer was spent hauling trees, rocks, bricks, and hopeful dreams to the 1.3 acres bought for only $3,000, a cheap price to pay for the treasurer of lingering moments. Each movement had a plan and every resource these founders took was never put to waste; consuming only enough trees and aging rocks to build this three-bedroom home. This tucked-away, remote land spoke to my family in a way none other did. Perhaps it was the lack of human activity and presence of buildings. Or perhaps it was the idea of setting a small place aside in this daunting globe we call home; never taking much, just what we need to be disconnected from society and reconnected to reality.
These old stripped trees that were once placed one-by-one to form a simple home now hold the heat of the crackling fire in the cold, overbearing winter. Through the frosted, chilled windows there is nothing but a pure-white blanket covering the life outside telling us to stay indoors. The old, black, red and avocado speckled carpet humors us as we laugh at the color and see the never disappearing strand-like hair that once belonged to our past and present furry friends. The sun-bleached deck supports the old memories of children running and playing, the current sound of dragging feet of early morning risers, the drying towels from the day at the lake, the swing that holds long conversations at dusk and the lonely sleepers looking up at the silent starry night.
The antique stone fireplace with the mustard-stained glass shows the dedication of my grandfather placing each rock with a specific purpose and not letting one fall out of sight. It brings flashbacks of making s’mores in the burning heat of summer, playing mindless board games in the chilling winter, and unforgiving cold nights of arrival with nothing but the heat of the dancing flames to keep us warm. It reminds me of the times when we would cram six cousins into a space made for four while watching the golden-orange hue blur as our eyelids fell. And I can still see the lot of us chopping, gathering and carrying wood to feed the fire that burns, slowly heating up the cabin room-by-room like a heart beating blood to each vessel.
An old gravel road carries few passengers through the day to the tree-fenced humble shore of Pearl Lake; home of fish, dying trees, secret paths and memories. The fragile glass of the clear water reflects a perfect image of the sun setting, lighting the hillside on fire with the last breaths of the trees fighting to stay alive. Unfortunately, these soldiers were not strong enough to fight the recurring enemy of the Pine Bark Beetle.
The Pine Bark Beetle has invaded the hills and mountainsides of Steamboat for over four years. They are the trees’ cancer slowly killing them while we can only helplessly watch them die. The insects´ greed not only brings death to the natural setting of our cabin but kills the ongoing memory of skiing through the snowy pine trees and climbing to the top of Grouse Mountain having an Empire State Building view of the uninhabited, pristine country of fighting trees, chimney smoke and the lonely, single, winding road leading to town. These trees have not given up hope and neither will I.
****
Every winter my family and I force our heavy ski boots on, strap our long skins onto the underbelly of our skis, throw our winter shields of mismatched puffy clothes on and start our journey through the thicket of trees. The sun slowly beats on our backs as we head up the mountain. Each stride I make impacts the snow and slowly tires me. It seems like the impossible journey. The closer I get, the bigger and steeper this watching mountain becomes. I grow weary. My legs shake like the autumn leaves as I push onward wishing I were at the top. My dog runs past me hardly sinking into the snow. Why can’t I do that? Every switchback is like a guessing game. I tell myself “just one more switchback” only to learn that the mountain is just playing around teasing me with, what seems like, the everlasting array of switchbacks. I want to quit, give up and sit down but there is something saying “just a little bit further. It’s worth it.” So I allow the peak to continue its comedy act and trudge on. I am angry at the world and wishing for hot tea, a blanket and good movie. I thought this was supposed to be fun… regardless, I push those thoughts aside and seek for the silver lining. As I make my heavy strides, I breathe in-and-out the cold, biting air like a horse in its final leg of the race, I see that I am almost there. I push myself with everything I have and as I approach the edge of the mountain, I drop to my knees in amazement and sit there silently with only the sound of my pounding chest as the view dominates my mind. This time, there is no punch line.
Exalted short-lived moments, like mine on the mountain top, are unusual. Where we are stopped in our tracks and taken aback by the beauty of the world where everything fades away and for the slightest of moments in time you see how small you are and how big the world is around you. You are indulged in the importance of the world letting us live here. But that is not enough. Any one of those moments rarely occur and quickly dissipate in the busy days of our lives causing us to forget what is so important to remember: We live on earth and it is not ours to do what we please and destroy, but it is ours to protect and admire.
There are no words to truly explain the beauty of this view. Delicate snow cascades over fields as far as the eye can see. The once towering trees are now so small dancing in the symphonic breeze. I catch my breath only to have it taken away once again. The hustle and bustle down below seems as though it has frozen in time. I escape from my always haunting fears and live in the joy of now. There is a peace and silence up here that I gain from no other place in the world. Not even the birds sing. All that remains is the trifling sound of my breath and the wind brushing my revealed skin as if reminding me of its terrific power. As I stand there I am reminded of a quote written by Paul Newman, “We are such spendthrifts with our lives, the trick of living is to slip on and off the planet with the least fuss you can muster. I’m not running for sainthood. I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer, who puts back into the soil what he takes out.”
There is a difference to me from using the planet’s resources as a means of survival and using the planet for selfish purposes. As a society, we have reached the point in life where we take what we want and don’t give anything back. But how does one continue taking when there is nothing left? We simply cannot live life believing that everything is ours for the taking and there is nothing we have to do in return. Does it not perplex people that animals are disappearing, nature is wilting and that we are slowly feeling suffocated in this once big world? Does it not concern one that it is hot and sunny in December but snows in May? If there were ever a time to ask questions and reflect on our actions, it would be now. We as humans are becoming nature’s biggest and greatest fear. As a human race we are slowly imposing on the last of the natural reserves taking everything for our consumption, leaving only the small traces of the breaking, hurting and pleading earth. And as a society there is only a single passed mind-set of “go” and “use”. We take what we want when we want it. We are no longer the farmer but only the consumer as earth is just an object to us ready for use at any time. The place that gives us a home and chance at life has no value in the majority’s eyes.
****
After some time, we turn back. I remove my skins and put on the layers I had shed previously and begin to head down the mountain. I quickly pick up speed and once again realize that I am not the one in control. Up here I must bend to nature’s lay of the land and watch myself as I fly past each tree. We reach the clearing; it is all downhill from here. I take a deep breath and plunge down the mountain side. My skis serve as the compass as I gain momentum and feel the rush of the stinging air. I begin to turn and cut into the fresh, unscathed powder and feel a smile grow on my face. There is no one to worry about but myself up here. I slow as the peak begins to ebb and turn back one last time. I take a final glance of the mountain top slowly gaining distance and as I look back, I get this growing pit of fear in my stomach. Will this still be here when I return? How many more times will I get this chance? Have we given this sacred place a limitation on life without our knowing? I choke back this fear and tell myself “it will be okay”. But deep down I know differently.
I’d like to believe that the extending hills, forest of flowers and the old roots of the lanky trees that embrace me in my coming will remain when I leave. We, as people, come and go. But the place we call home stays. It remains in the location we build it and has no choice to run and hide, much like nature. It was given its one and only destination with no other opportunity to move. And unlike us, nature cannot run from its problems. It is forced to face every consequence of our wrong doings and break with our ever so dominate presence of self-indulgence. Unfortunately we go on to think that we cannot suffer from the damage we caused. We plan for the future, but only for our future. We dream of the luxury of having power, water and anything at the reach of our intact fingers. But there is no charmed crystal ball or card readings necessary to tell the future for us. Because of our insensitivity, earth and the growing life within it have numbered days. The mindset of invincibility is just a clouded illusion. We as a human race are a self-destructive time bomb running as fast as we can from the detonation. Sadly running from your problems will solve nothing and to make matters worse, the only problem we are running from is ourselves.
This long standing cabin grows weaker in its structure but stronger in its value. It is the one place I find peace, relaxation and myself. It is the one place that awakens every inch of my body when breathing the untouched air. It is the one place I long to be. It is the only place that whispers home
Reflection
The goal of this project was to write an essay that displayed your environmental ethic and “your place”. We were also instructed to create a visual piece that connected to the essay and display our ethic. Over the time period of this project, we looked at environmental ethics, environmental justice, how our power sources (nuclear, coal, gas etc…) affect the environment, how poets, photographers and film artists display their reactions to energy and how to write in the “grand style” form. In addition to these topics, we also kept a journal where we wrote to different prompts about where we are and how that place affects us.
Writing this essay made me grow in a way I did not expect. When sitting down to write this essay I had to stop and think of the different places that were special to me and had a positive impact on my life. As I was thinking of each place, I had to ask myself, “What makes this place special to me?” This alone made me realize how important it is to have a place to call your own and how vital it is to preserve the earth as much as we can. However, what had even more of an effect on me was contemplating my environmental ethic. This caused me to push myself to think of what I find important in the world and reflect on my actions and others’ actions towards the world. This gave me the realization that no amount of recycling or clean energy will save us or the earth, but we as a human race must change our ways to change the destiny of the world. Reflecting over the project, I am proud of both my visual piece and essay. However, I am more proud of my essay because I believe it shows my growth as a writer and clearly and beautifully describes my sense of place. For example, in my essay I write, “The fragile glass of the clear water reflects a perfect image of the sun setting, lighting the hillside on fire with the last breaths of the trees fighting to stay alive. Unfortunately, these soldiers were not strong enough to fight the recurring enemy of the Pine Bark Beetle.” To me this displays my ability to express ideas in a clear way, my capability of describing my surrounding place in a poetic manner and how I have improved in my writing skills over this year. And based off of the rubric, I feel like I did a really nice job on the sense of place and descriptive language categories.
Going into this project I was not very excited about the idea of combining Humanities and Chemistry together. However, once it was all said and done, I feel like they worked well together and better helped me understand the “technical” (chemistry) aspects of energy while being able to add ethical reasoning to the project. In the end, this helped my understanding of the dilemma we have at hand and how there is a positive and negative side to every form of energy and that there are many different ways to approach this energy problem.
The goal of this project was to write an essay that displayed your environmental ethic and “your place”. We were also instructed to create a visual piece that connected to the essay and display our ethic. Over the time period of this project, we looked at environmental ethics, environmental justice, how our power sources (nuclear, coal, gas etc…) affect the environment, how poets, photographers and film artists display their reactions to energy and how to write in the “grand style” form. In addition to these topics, we also kept a journal where we wrote to different prompts about where we are and how that place affects us.
Writing this essay made me grow in a way I did not expect. When sitting down to write this essay I had to stop and think of the different places that were special to me and had a positive impact on my life. As I was thinking of each place, I had to ask myself, “What makes this place special to me?” This alone made me realize how important it is to have a place to call your own and how vital it is to preserve the earth as much as we can. However, what had even more of an effect on me was contemplating my environmental ethic. This caused me to push myself to think of what I find important in the world and reflect on my actions and others’ actions towards the world. This gave me the realization that no amount of recycling or clean energy will save us or the earth, but we as a human race must change our ways to change the destiny of the world. Reflecting over the project, I am proud of both my visual piece and essay. However, I am more proud of my essay because I believe it shows my growth as a writer and clearly and beautifully describes my sense of place. For example, in my essay I write, “The fragile glass of the clear water reflects a perfect image of the sun setting, lighting the hillside on fire with the last breaths of the trees fighting to stay alive. Unfortunately, these soldiers were not strong enough to fight the recurring enemy of the Pine Bark Beetle.” To me this displays my ability to express ideas in a clear way, my capability of describing my surrounding place in a poetic manner and how I have improved in my writing skills over this year. And based off of the rubric, I feel like I did a really nice job on the sense of place and descriptive language categories.
Going into this project I was not very excited about the idea of combining Humanities and Chemistry together. However, once it was all said and done, I feel like they worked well together and better helped me understand the “technical” (chemistry) aspects of energy while being able to add ethical reasoning to the project. In the end, this helped my understanding of the dilemma we have at hand and how there is a positive and negative side to every form of energy and that there are many different ways to approach this energy problem.
To see my chemistry project that complimented my humanities project, please click here. Or click on the Chemistry link on the left side bar.
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Here is an image of a Japanese internment camp order (Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34)
Case Summary
Fred Korematsu was born to Japanese immigrants in Oakland, California in 1919. He attended public school all the way through high school. In high school, during the World War ll time period, he encountered racism when both the army and his girlfriend’s family looked down upon him because of his ancestry. In high school, an army recruit came to his school and started handing out flyers to his non-Japanese friends. Korematsu was told that the offer was not extended to him because of his Japanese descent. When the U.S Navy called for military duty under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, Korematsu was rejected due to stomach ulcers. From there Koermatsu went on to become a welder where once again he experienced harsh racism prohibiting him from finding much work. By 1941, the year the attack on Pearl Harbor took place, he was unable to find any work. On May 3 of 1942, General DeWitt instructed all Japanese Americans to report to Assembly Centers on May 9th. Korematsu refused to report and went into hiding in Oakland. During this time of hiding, Korematsu underwent plastic surgery to disguise his race and changed his name to Clyde Sarah, claiming to be of Hawaiian and Spanish decent. He was then arrested on May 30, 1942 for being recognized as Japanese and for refusing to go to the internment camps. Eventually, in 1944, his case was moved to the Supreme Court.
Court Ruling
A 6-3 majority on the Court supported the conviction of Korematsu.
Concurring:
Within the case of Korematsu, the Court sided with the government and upheld the government’s need to protect against espionage, overshadowing the rights to which Korematsu was entitled. The military argued that because the purpose behind internment camps was to test the loyalty of Japanese Americans, the fact that Korematsu went into hiding posed national security concerns outweighing the promise of the Constitution to create equal rights. Justice Black argued that the ruling of the precedent of Hirabayashi justified the constitutionality of the exclusion order. He claimed that the order was acceptable in situations of “emergency and peril.” In addition, the case passed through the three tests of strict scrutiny and the order was still upheld. The three tests include: justification by a compelling governmental interest, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and the law or policy must be enacted by the least restrictive means possible.
Dissenting:
The dissenting justices, Justice Jackson, Murphy and Roberts, argued that there was not enough sound evidence to support that Korematsu posed a national security threat as claimed by the government. Justice Robert Jackson countered Blacks on the justification of the ruling of Hirabayashi and the exclusion order argument by suggesting that if they began giving Japanese Americans curfews and started removing them from their residences, what will be the line at which they stop. Jackson issued that Koermatsu was convicted of an action that was not typically seen as a crime. Jackson voiced that, "It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived." He concluded that the concern for national security was not sufficient enough to eliminate Korematsu of his civil rights as a citizen guarded by the constitution. The dissenting acknowledged that in wartimes, the military most likely possess the power to arrest any citizen and that the judicial branch, possessing no executive power, could do little to stop that. However, they continued with an argument insisting that a relocation center “was a euphemism for prison,” and that the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was based on “the disinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices.” This discrimination did not stand as evidence and could not justify the enforcement of internment camps.
5th Amendment:
No person shall be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case. No person shall be subjected to a second trial for a crime in which he or she has been accordingly previously tried for.
14th Amendment:
All those born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they live. No State will enforce any law which shall abridge privileges of citizens. Nor may any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Nor may the state deny any within its jurisdiction to equal protection of the laws.
Executive Order 9066:
Authorized U.S armed forces commander and the Secretary of War to declare military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded…”
Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34:
An exclusion order issued by General DeWitt ordering all people of Japanese ancestry living in “Military Area No.1” to report to assembly centers where they would reside until permanently moved to “Relocation Centers”.
Espionage Act of 1917:
Prohibition of any attempts to tamper with U.S. military, to support U.S. enemies in time of war, interference with recruitment of military or promotion of insubordination within the military.
Presidential Powers:
Commander in Chief of U.S. Army and Navy, deploys military troops, controller of military strategy creates treaties.
Reaction: I feel like the presidential powers are rather vague. It doesn’t seem like they have any limitations within the powers listed above.
Congress Powers:
Declares war, funds and supports war, grants letters to marques and reprisals and formulates rules of seizing land and water.
Reaction: I feel that the Congress powers are more specific (without being limiting) than the presidential powers and have somewhat more of a “guideline” to them.
Sedition Act of 1918:
Extension upon the Espionage Act: It is prohibited to express and or speak against or negatively of the U.S. government or war. Disloyal language concerning the U.S. government, its flag or armed forces is forbidden.
Alien Act of 1798:
Authorization of the president to arrest, imprison or expel any resident aliens coming from enemy countries in which America has declared war, deemed by the president as "dangerous to the peace and safety". This may be executed without a hearing.
Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act):
Creating criminal consequences for any advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and requires all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.
Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Legal procedure that prohibits the government from holding you indefinitely without showing cause. All citizens have the right to file for the writ of Habeas Corpus and obtain the knowledge and reasoning for arrest and charge and then given the due process of law.
Case Opinion
Based on the provided evidence from the prosecution and defense, Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Order No. 34 were unconstitutional. Although the prosecution performed relatively well, they neglected to mention presidential powers during war time and did not use the constitution to their advantage, leaving an absence of convincing and relevant evidence. The defense provided much more evidence such as the violation of the 14th Amendment, the fact that the FBI had detained most of the spies and the point that during WWII individual questioning of the Germans and Italians occurred. The defense made the argument that with both of these orders; it violated the 14th Amendment stating that all those born in the US are citizens of the United States and that no State will enforce any law which shall abridge privileges of citizens. Nor may any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. In addition, J Edger Hoover mentioned that the FBI had already eradicated the majority of the Japanese spies and was aware of the Black Dragon group (a group trying to enforce loyalty to the Japanese Emperor). Lastly the defense made the court aware that in the same time period the Germans and Italians were not judged based on their race and given individual questioning to decide if their loyalty to the United States. With this evidence, strict scrutiny cannot be passed due the fact that there was a less restrictive way to secure the military bases and there was not enough evidence present to defend the claim of a national threat to the US.
Reflection
The purpose of this project was to gain an understanding of what injustices were going on in the time of Pearl Harbor. With this project we were assigned different roles (judge, attorneys, defense witnesses, prosecution witnesses and bailiff) and were instructed to research and to get in the mind set of our character. We then participated in a mock trial of Korematsu v. U.S. in a court house with the ultimate decision being whether or not this case was constitutional. In preparation for this mock trial we read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson to understand the prejudices dominant in the 1940’s, examined the Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34., studied the Japanese internment camps and the reasoning behind their existence, explored the three branches of the government, studied the Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 and observed other Supreme Court cases. Looking at all of these historical events and documents not only gave us a sense of how Japanese Americans were treated, but ultimately gave us an understanding of the Constitution and the values that our country is based upon.
For the majority of this project, we worked in groups of 5-6 people to help each other with the work we were required to accomplish. Personally this was a very good and valuable experience for me. Having a group helped me plan out my time better, allowed me to discuss the required readings, let me “bounce” ideas off of others and pushed me to think deeper. In addition, this personally helped improve my skills of communication. Because my group was made up of the other judges, we didn’t have many challenges or disagreements on what to do in the trial because we were mostly studying court rulings, the constitution and the actual case of Korematsu. With saying that, the only “challenges” we ever encountered were when our group had several different interpretations of amendments or rulings which we overcame by backing up our viewpoint and enlisting the help of Ashley.
As a judge I didn’t make many substantial changes to my writing because I was, for the most part, researching different Amendments, law, orders and Korematsu’s life on which I couldn’t put much personal or persuasive spin on. However, two changes that were made to my case summary were being more specific about the history and events behind the case and trying to gain a greater understanding of the reasons behind the concurring and dissenting sides. Initially, when I had written a brief biography of Korematsu I had not been very specific. After conducting more research and reading over the summary I had written I realized that there were more important components that needed to be added. For instance, I did not mention much about his arrest, reasons for arrest, and what happened to him after the arrest. These were significant factors to add because it sets the basis up for the whole trial and gives the reader a chance to develop their own perspective on the case. One example of my putting more information in the court’s ruling to gain a better understanding was the addition of the ruling of Hirabayashi. Before Ashley looked over my summary, I had not added this ruling. But with Ashley’s suggestion to add it and more careful research, I recognized that this was a key component to add to the court’s ruling because both the concurring and dissenting used it in their argument (with different reasons in mind). This improved my writing because it gives the reader a better understanding of what was going on in the time period and how it could be potentially used for either side’s argument.
Going into this project I was somewhat skeptical. I didn’t see how our class was going to gain enough information/knowledge to realistically assess the case. However when looking back on the project, I had a lot of fun and I believe that we had just the right amount of time to do this and did a very good job of creating this case. Though this project was very fun and turned out relatively well, there are a few things that I would refine to improve the project. For starters I would have the judges memorize the objections and court room terms to help them give quick and fair ruling of the objections during the trial. I would also give a more detailed outline of what should be included in the concurring and dissenting sides of the case, and have a run-through of the trial before hand.
Fred Korematsu was born to Japanese immigrants in Oakland, California in 1919. He attended public school all the way through high school. In high school, during the World War ll time period, he encountered racism when both the army and his girlfriend’s family looked down upon him because of his ancestry. In high school, an army recruit came to his school and started handing out flyers to his non-Japanese friends. Korematsu was told that the offer was not extended to him because of his Japanese descent. When the U.S Navy called for military duty under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, Korematsu was rejected due to stomach ulcers. From there Koermatsu went on to become a welder where once again he experienced harsh racism prohibiting him from finding much work. By 1941, the year the attack on Pearl Harbor took place, he was unable to find any work. On May 3 of 1942, General DeWitt instructed all Japanese Americans to report to Assembly Centers on May 9th. Korematsu refused to report and went into hiding in Oakland. During this time of hiding, Korematsu underwent plastic surgery to disguise his race and changed his name to Clyde Sarah, claiming to be of Hawaiian and Spanish decent. He was then arrested on May 30, 1942 for being recognized as Japanese and for refusing to go to the internment camps. Eventually, in 1944, his case was moved to the Supreme Court.
Court Ruling
A 6-3 majority on the Court supported the conviction of Korematsu.
Concurring:
Within the case of Korematsu, the Court sided with the government and upheld the government’s need to protect against espionage, overshadowing the rights to which Korematsu was entitled. The military argued that because the purpose behind internment camps was to test the loyalty of Japanese Americans, the fact that Korematsu went into hiding posed national security concerns outweighing the promise of the Constitution to create equal rights. Justice Black argued that the ruling of the precedent of Hirabayashi justified the constitutionality of the exclusion order. He claimed that the order was acceptable in situations of “emergency and peril.” In addition, the case passed through the three tests of strict scrutiny and the order was still upheld. The three tests include: justification by a compelling governmental interest, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and the law or policy must be enacted by the least restrictive means possible.
Dissenting:
The dissenting justices, Justice Jackson, Murphy and Roberts, argued that there was not enough sound evidence to support that Korematsu posed a national security threat as claimed by the government. Justice Robert Jackson countered Blacks on the justification of the ruling of Hirabayashi and the exclusion order argument by suggesting that if they began giving Japanese Americans curfews and started removing them from their residences, what will be the line at which they stop. Jackson issued that Koermatsu was convicted of an action that was not typically seen as a crime. Jackson voiced that, "It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived." He concluded that the concern for national security was not sufficient enough to eliminate Korematsu of his civil rights as a citizen guarded by the constitution. The dissenting acknowledged that in wartimes, the military most likely possess the power to arrest any citizen and that the judicial branch, possessing no executive power, could do little to stop that. However, they continued with an argument insisting that a relocation center “was a euphemism for prison,” and that the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was based on “the disinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices.” This discrimination did not stand as evidence and could not justify the enforcement of internment camps.
5th Amendment:
No person shall be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case. No person shall be subjected to a second trial for a crime in which he or she has been accordingly previously tried for.
14th Amendment:
All those born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they live. No State will enforce any law which shall abridge privileges of citizens. Nor may any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Nor may the state deny any within its jurisdiction to equal protection of the laws.
Executive Order 9066:
Authorized U.S armed forces commander and the Secretary of War to declare military areas "from which any or all persons may be excluded…”
Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34:
An exclusion order issued by General DeWitt ordering all people of Japanese ancestry living in “Military Area No.1” to report to assembly centers where they would reside until permanently moved to “Relocation Centers”.
Espionage Act of 1917:
Prohibition of any attempts to tamper with U.S. military, to support U.S. enemies in time of war, interference with recruitment of military or promotion of insubordination within the military.
Presidential Powers:
Commander in Chief of U.S. Army and Navy, deploys military troops, controller of military strategy creates treaties.
Reaction: I feel like the presidential powers are rather vague. It doesn’t seem like they have any limitations within the powers listed above.
Congress Powers:
Declares war, funds and supports war, grants letters to marques and reprisals and formulates rules of seizing land and water.
Reaction: I feel that the Congress powers are more specific (without being limiting) than the presidential powers and have somewhat more of a “guideline” to them.
Sedition Act of 1918:
Extension upon the Espionage Act: It is prohibited to express and or speak against or negatively of the U.S. government or war. Disloyal language concerning the U.S. government, its flag or armed forces is forbidden.
Alien Act of 1798:
Authorization of the president to arrest, imprison or expel any resident aliens coming from enemy countries in which America has declared war, deemed by the president as "dangerous to the peace and safety". This may be executed without a hearing.
Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act):
Creating criminal consequences for any advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and requires all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.
Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Legal procedure that prohibits the government from holding you indefinitely without showing cause. All citizens have the right to file for the writ of Habeas Corpus and obtain the knowledge and reasoning for arrest and charge and then given the due process of law.
Case Opinion
Based on the provided evidence from the prosecution and defense, Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Order No. 34 were unconstitutional. Although the prosecution performed relatively well, they neglected to mention presidential powers during war time and did not use the constitution to their advantage, leaving an absence of convincing and relevant evidence. The defense provided much more evidence such as the violation of the 14th Amendment, the fact that the FBI had detained most of the spies and the point that during WWII individual questioning of the Germans and Italians occurred. The defense made the argument that with both of these orders; it violated the 14th Amendment stating that all those born in the US are citizens of the United States and that no State will enforce any law which shall abridge privileges of citizens. Nor may any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. In addition, J Edger Hoover mentioned that the FBI had already eradicated the majority of the Japanese spies and was aware of the Black Dragon group (a group trying to enforce loyalty to the Japanese Emperor). Lastly the defense made the court aware that in the same time period the Germans and Italians were not judged based on their race and given individual questioning to decide if their loyalty to the United States. With this evidence, strict scrutiny cannot be passed due the fact that there was a less restrictive way to secure the military bases and there was not enough evidence present to defend the claim of a national threat to the US.
Reflection
The purpose of this project was to gain an understanding of what injustices were going on in the time of Pearl Harbor. With this project we were assigned different roles (judge, attorneys, defense witnesses, prosecution witnesses and bailiff) and were instructed to research and to get in the mind set of our character. We then participated in a mock trial of Korematsu v. U.S. in a court house with the ultimate decision being whether or not this case was constitutional. In preparation for this mock trial we read Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson to understand the prejudices dominant in the 1940’s, examined the Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34., studied the Japanese internment camps and the reasoning behind their existence, explored the three branches of the government, studied the Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 and observed other Supreme Court cases. Looking at all of these historical events and documents not only gave us a sense of how Japanese Americans were treated, but ultimately gave us an understanding of the Constitution and the values that our country is based upon.
For the majority of this project, we worked in groups of 5-6 people to help each other with the work we were required to accomplish. Personally this was a very good and valuable experience for me. Having a group helped me plan out my time better, allowed me to discuss the required readings, let me “bounce” ideas off of others and pushed me to think deeper. In addition, this personally helped improve my skills of communication. Because my group was made up of the other judges, we didn’t have many challenges or disagreements on what to do in the trial because we were mostly studying court rulings, the constitution and the actual case of Korematsu. With saying that, the only “challenges” we ever encountered were when our group had several different interpretations of amendments or rulings which we overcame by backing up our viewpoint and enlisting the help of Ashley.
As a judge I didn’t make many substantial changes to my writing because I was, for the most part, researching different Amendments, law, orders and Korematsu’s life on which I couldn’t put much personal or persuasive spin on. However, two changes that were made to my case summary were being more specific about the history and events behind the case and trying to gain a greater understanding of the reasons behind the concurring and dissenting sides. Initially, when I had written a brief biography of Korematsu I had not been very specific. After conducting more research and reading over the summary I had written I realized that there were more important components that needed to be added. For instance, I did not mention much about his arrest, reasons for arrest, and what happened to him after the arrest. These were significant factors to add because it sets the basis up for the whole trial and gives the reader a chance to develop their own perspective on the case. One example of my putting more information in the court’s ruling to gain a better understanding was the addition of the ruling of Hirabayashi. Before Ashley looked over my summary, I had not added this ruling. But with Ashley’s suggestion to add it and more careful research, I recognized that this was a key component to add to the court’s ruling because both the concurring and dissenting used it in their argument (with different reasons in mind). This improved my writing because it gives the reader a better understanding of what was going on in the time period and how it could be potentially used for either side’s argument.
Going into this project I was somewhat skeptical. I didn’t see how our class was going to gain enough information/knowledge to realistically assess the case. However when looking back on the project, I had a lot of fun and I believe that we had just the right amount of time to do this and did a very good job of creating this case. Though this project was very fun and turned out relatively well, there are a few things that I would refine to improve the project. For starters I would have the judges memorize the objections and court room terms to help them give quick and fair ruling of the objections during the trial. I would also give a more detailed outline of what should be included in the concurring and dissenting sides of the case, and have a run-through of the trial before hand.
THE MORALITY AND POLITICS OF JUSTICE
Political Issue Campaign Poster
Artist Statement
A decision by the government to illegalize abortion would be the most just action for our society. By illegalizing abortion, it creates provides justice and equality for the greatest amount of people.
I used symbolism in my poster by using a picture of a pregnant woman with her baby’s foot pressed up against her stomach. Although this is highly impractical, this gives the idea that the baby is indeed a life, therefore should have equal rights. Over the picture are words saying “Your mom gave you the chance” which personally brings in the audience by putting them in the baby’s shoes. By doing that, I am incorporating the rhetorical appeal device pathos. My poster has a frank and reflective tone and calls for a response from the observer due to the phrasing of the words. These words are honest to the point where it causes the viewer to contemplate their own right to life. The arrangement and font of the words was used to strengthen the message and tone of the poster. By using such a bold font and highlighting the words “you” and “chance” it makes it more personal, which in the end, causes the poster to be stronger because people can relate to it. I also placed the word “you” above the foot so the audience is drawn to the word “you” first and then see the foot. This makes them associate themselves with the child.
Overall I am reasonably pleased with my poster. It gets the main ideas across, it challenges the audience to put themselves in the child’s place and it is easy to connect to on a personal level. The one thing I would have liked to change/improve is the pixilation of the image. However I could not do so because I got the images from the internet and the original image itself was pixelated to start with. But regardless of the pixilation, I feel that I did a quality job of incorporating my thesis of my article, including a rhetorical appeal device, integrating a quote in a fluid manner and creating a strong/challenging message with the time I was given.
Work Cited:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/womenshealthcarenc/baby-foot-pregnancy.jpg
Op-Ed Article
The Supreme Court made a glaring error in 1973 with Roe v. Wade by prioritizing human choice over a human’s right to life. The time has come to reevaluate that decision.
As a person who was adopted, I find the utmost importance in making abortion illegal. However, there are situations such as rape, incest or life threatening situations where abortion should be legal. Though many protest that illegalizing abortion is unfair to women and their rights regarding the choice to their own bodies, I believe quite the contrary. In cases listed above, these women did not have the choice to be in the situation which caused them to become pregnant. Alternatively, other women choose to have unprotected sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Though accidents do occur with protected sex, there is still no justification of aborting a child and abandoning the responsibilities of their actions. Legalizing abortion removed the value of life of even the smallest individual and the liberty and equality of the child.
In 1787, the founders of our country made a pledge that they based the fundamentals and laws of this country on securing liberty and prosperity, instituting justice for all and creating common welfare and defense for our country’s people as stated in the Constitution’s preamble: “we the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity…” Along with welfare comes inclusion of ensuring everyone has an equal chance to life and protection of their life. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court abandoned the building blocks of our government by willingly letting other humans take away a life of a child who cannot speak for him/herself.
Although many pro-choice advocates argue that illegalizing abortion removes the right of a woman’s freedom of choice, they don’t seem to acknowledge that by allowing for abortions, women are taking away freedom of choice of the baby and abusing his/her right of liberty by inflicting harm on the child. John Stuart Mills believed that defending individual liberty had the highest importance in social institutions and that the only time liberty should be removed is when one is forcing harm upon another. In Mills’ “Harm Principle”, he states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mills is communicating that the government may not interfere on an individual’s actions until the individual is causing harm to others. In the case of abortion, women are not only inflicting harm on the young life inside them, but they are also eliminating the child’s right to liberty.
In addition to liberty, aborting a baby eradicates its most basic equal right: life. John Rawls, a 20th century philosopher, developed a theory called the “Veil of Ignorance” which Louis Katzner summarizes as he says “It prevents the tailoring of principles to individual circumstances by concealing knowledge of oneself, one’s society, and the relationship between the two…” Abortion disregards this idea of putting yourself aside from the situation to create equality for all, and instead focuses on allowing the woman to decide what is best for only her. Abortion does not value the life of an unborn child and is treating the child as though he/she is not as important as the woman.
Illegalizing abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or life threatening situations) creates more liberty and equality for a greater amount of people. Though many argue that this is unfair because women don’t get a say in the matter, illegalizing abortion does not truly strip women from freedom of choice. They always have the choice of giving the child up for adoption. Through adoption, the woman is no longer obligated to care for the child, families who want or are unable to have a family are able to have one and the child is given an equal right to life. As a person who has been adopted, every day I am grateful for my mother giving me the chance to live. Through her selflessness and courage, though being a single woman with a low paying job, I was given the greatest gift anyone could give or ask for: life.
A decision by the government to illegalize abortion would be the most just action for our society. By illegalizing abortion, it creates provides justice and equality for the greatest amount of people.
I used symbolism in my poster by using a picture of a pregnant woman with her baby’s foot pressed up against her stomach. Although this is highly impractical, this gives the idea that the baby is indeed a life, therefore should have equal rights. Over the picture are words saying “Your mom gave you the chance” which personally brings in the audience by putting them in the baby’s shoes. By doing that, I am incorporating the rhetorical appeal device pathos. My poster has a frank and reflective tone and calls for a response from the observer due to the phrasing of the words. These words are honest to the point where it causes the viewer to contemplate their own right to life. The arrangement and font of the words was used to strengthen the message and tone of the poster. By using such a bold font and highlighting the words “you” and “chance” it makes it more personal, which in the end, causes the poster to be stronger because people can relate to it. I also placed the word “you” above the foot so the audience is drawn to the word “you” first and then see the foot. This makes them associate themselves with the child.
Overall I am reasonably pleased with my poster. It gets the main ideas across, it challenges the audience to put themselves in the child’s place and it is easy to connect to on a personal level. The one thing I would have liked to change/improve is the pixilation of the image. However I could not do so because I got the images from the internet and the original image itself was pixelated to start with. But regardless of the pixilation, I feel that I did a quality job of incorporating my thesis of my article, including a rhetorical appeal device, integrating a quote in a fluid manner and creating a strong/challenging message with the time I was given.
Work Cited:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/womenshealthcarenc/baby-foot-pregnancy.jpg
Op-Ed Article
The Supreme Court made a glaring error in 1973 with Roe v. Wade by prioritizing human choice over a human’s right to life. The time has come to reevaluate that decision.
As a person who was adopted, I find the utmost importance in making abortion illegal. However, there are situations such as rape, incest or life threatening situations where abortion should be legal. Though many protest that illegalizing abortion is unfair to women and their rights regarding the choice to their own bodies, I believe quite the contrary. In cases listed above, these women did not have the choice to be in the situation which caused them to become pregnant. Alternatively, other women choose to have unprotected sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Though accidents do occur with protected sex, there is still no justification of aborting a child and abandoning the responsibilities of their actions. Legalizing abortion removed the value of life of even the smallest individual and the liberty and equality of the child.
In 1787, the founders of our country made a pledge that they based the fundamentals and laws of this country on securing liberty and prosperity, instituting justice for all and creating common welfare and defense for our country’s people as stated in the Constitution’s preamble: “we the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity…” Along with welfare comes inclusion of ensuring everyone has an equal chance to life and protection of their life. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court abandoned the building blocks of our government by willingly letting other humans take away a life of a child who cannot speak for him/herself.
Although many pro-choice advocates argue that illegalizing abortion removes the right of a woman’s freedom of choice, they don’t seem to acknowledge that by allowing for abortions, women are taking away freedom of choice of the baby and abusing his/her right of liberty by inflicting harm on the child. John Stuart Mills believed that defending individual liberty had the highest importance in social institutions and that the only time liberty should be removed is when one is forcing harm upon another. In Mills’ “Harm Principle”, he states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mills is communicating that the government may not interfere on an individual’s actions until the individual is causing harm to others. In the case of abortion, women are not only inflicting harm on the young life inside them, but they are also eliminating the child’s right to liberty.
In addition to liberty, aborting a baby eradicates its most basic equal right: life. John Rawls, a 20th century philosopher, developed a theory called the “Veil of Ignorance” which Louis Katzner summarizes as he says “It prevents the tailoring of principles to individual circumstances by concealing knowledge of oneself, one’s society, and the relationship between the two…” Abortion disregards this idea of putting yourself aside from the situation to create equality for all, and instead focuses on allowing the woman to decide what is best for only her. Abortion does not value the life of an unborn child and is treating the child as though he/she is not as important as the woman.
Illegalizing abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or life threatening situations) creates more liberty and equality for a greater amount of people. Though many argue that this is unfair because women don’t get a say in the matter, illegalizing abortion does not truly strip women from freedom of choice. They always have the choice of giving the child up for adoption. Through adoption, the woman is no longer obligated to care for the child, families who want or are unable to have a family are able to have one and the child is given an equal right to life. As a person who has been adopted, every day I am grateful for my mother giving me the chance to live. Through her selflessness and courage, though being a single woman with a low paying job, I was given the greatest gift anyone could give or ask for: life.
Moral Development Interview Essay
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly.” Thomas Jefferson believed that you should act morally even if no one is looking. Our morals are a key part to our everyday life and of our society and they help guide many of our decisions. Morals enable a well-balanced society that gives a sense of security and liberty to the community. Without morals, society would degenerate into chaos. Religion, family, personal beliefs, culture and an internal sense of right and wrong all play a part into our moral reasoning. To gain a greater understanding of how people make moral decisions, I interviewed a 57 year old white male Christian orthopedic surgeon who lives in Durango, CO. He responded to several moral dilemma questions, current political questions and questions about how he judges what is right or wrong in his decisions as a doctor. To protect the subject’s identity, I have changed his name to subject P. Though P’s responses vary slightly through Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, it can be concluded that P straddles the conventional and post-conventional stage of moral development and looks at situations through a utilitarianism viewpoint.
When looking at subject P’s responses to the moral dilemma transplant case, it is apparent that subject P is aligned most directly with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that weighs pleasure against pain to determine what is of most benefit to the community (Carruth). If the majority of the people are happy, it is the morally right thing to do. When asked if it was morally mandatory to let one patient die in order to save five other patients, subject P replied by saying, “Nothing is mandatory. You have a choice. This is called triage. The maximum benefit would be to treat the five if all you have are limited resources” (personal interview, 9/24/12). Utilitarianists believe that creating the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is the morally right thing to do. In contrast, deontologists believe that we must act on purely good will and not look at the consequences or results. Subject P’s belief that everyone has a choice about every action they take and his desire of maximum benefit for everyone categorizes him into utilitarianism. In comparison, deontologists and rights ethicists believe that we have certain duties we must and must not do.
Another response that points subject P in the utilitarian direction is when he said that the doctor needs to save the five lives because he has a duty to do the most good and the least harm. This shows that he thinks of the greater result and effect his actions will have on the community. His consideration of the community and his consequential reasoning is a major characteristic of utilitarianism. In Catherine Rainbows article, Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles, she states, “The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct.” Utilitarianists base their actions upon two principles: how much their actions will positively affect the greatest amount of people, and what the consequences of their actions will be. When looking at a situation, a utilitarian looks at what produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Individualism is not taken into consideration. This clearly shows that subject P aligns with utilitarianism because the subject looked at both possible solutions to the problem and chose the one that would cause the most happiness for the most people. Though we have arrived at P’s moral theory alignment, looking at Kohlberg’s six stages of Moral Development Theory will give us a deeper understanding of P’s moral development.
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development is a theory that categorizes people’s moral thinking into six different stages (three levels) to determine one’s moral development. The three levels include; level one: pre-conventional morality, level two: conventional morality and level three: post-conventional morality. The pre-conventional level includes the two stages of obedience and punishment orientation (stage one), and individualism and exchange (stage two). The conventional level includes the two stages of good interpersonal relationships (stage three) and maintaining the social order (stage four). While the post-conventional level includes the two stages of social contract and individual rights (stage five), and universal principles (stage six).
It is most evident that subject P is in between the conventional and post-conventional stages when responding to Heinz’s dilemma. When asked the question if Heinz should steal the drug or not subject P replied, “It sounds like the druggist is selfish and unethical. I think at times it is reasonable to break the law to pursue a greater good. I think my love for my wife would outweigh my fear of getting caught and also the illegal nature of what I was doing (stealing the drug). I would need to be willing to pay the consequences of my theft, though. It would not be OK to shoot all the cops that came to arrest me.” This shows that he is in between the conventional and post-conventional level because he fits into the good interpersonal relationships (stage three) and shows signs of social contract and individual rights (stage five). When saying that the druggist is “selfish and unethical” he is indirectly emphasizing that Heinz is a good man and the druggist is a bad man which falls into stage three. Many people in stage three look at one person being the “good guy” and the other as being the “bad guy” and base their judgment by saying that it is morally okay for the good guy to break a law because he was a good person trying to do the right thing. When subject P says “I think, at times, it is reasonable to break the law to pursue a greater good” we see that the subject begins to fall into stage five. When people are deciding if an action is morally correct or not they make three things clear: first that the action is preserving basic rights such as liberty and life, second that the illegal action is causing a greater good for the society and lastly that they prefer not to break the law but if it is preserving someone’s basic rights it is morally permissible. This shows that P is potentially at stage five because P makes it clear that at times it is permissible to break a law if it is creating a greater good for society. However, there is some ambiguity when saying P is in stage five of moral development because it is unclear as to whether the subject would just save his spouse or if he would save anyone to create a greater good for society. To get a better understanding of P’s moral development, questions about current political events were asked.
When asked the question ‘what factors into the decision of being pro-life?’ subject P replied “Well I think my stance is based on my faith in God and also my respect for life as a human being. If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? I just don’t think you can get away from that question...” This supports the claim that subject P is at stage five because he not only acknowledges the “rules” of his religion, but the subject also takes into consideration his self-chosen principles. In Lawrence Kohlberg’s article, Moral stages and moralization the cognitive-developmental approach, Kohlberg writes, “Level III is a post-conventional person, who has differentiated himself from the rules and expectations of others and defines his values in terms of self-chosen principles” (204). Subject P took note of the expectations and rules of his religion but went further into explanation as to why he considers it immoral to abort a baby by saying that the respect he has for life is one of the major deciding factors in his decision. In this statement he is also displaying his opinions on rights to life as most do in stage five.
In W.C. Crain’s book, Theories of Development, (chapter 7) he explains that people in stage three look at good behavior as a main deciding factor. “Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her…” (Crain). In the same chapter, Crain describes people in stage five as looking for the greater good for the society, respecting basic rights and accepting the fact that at some points in time breaking the law is the morally permitted thing to do. “First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected. Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society. In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage five respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage five respondents sometimes defend Heinz’s theft…” This coincides with the previous statements that P’s moral development falls between a conventional and post-conventional stage because P not only thinks that the druggist is a bad man, but he believes that this would be a morally permitted occasion to break the law because P would be saving the one he loves.
As P has shown, morals contribute greatly into our individual lives and beliefs on modern day issues. And, on a larger scale, the different morals that each individual has plays a huge role in our society as a whole. Without these morals the world would be in a constant state of discord and we would be left without a basis for justice. After much analysis of subject P’s responses it can be determined that subject P looks at life through a utilitarian viewpoint and is currently between a conventional and post-conventional stage in his moral development.
Citations:
Carruth, A. Class lecture. 5 Sept. 2012.
Crain, W.C. "Kohlberg's Moral Stages." Kohlberg's Moral Stages. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. <http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm>.
Garrod, Andrew. "Moral Stages and Moralization The Cognitive-developmental Approach."Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Development: Readings in Educational Psychology. Dubuque, Ia.: Kendall/Hunt, 1984. 201-12. Print.
"Principles and Theories." Principles and Theories. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm>.
Subject P. Personal Interview. 24 Sept. 2012.
Project Reflection
The purpose of this project was to look at a specific modern political issue and create a moral and just way for the government to handle the issue. For this project, we began by looking at moral dilemmas and how morals can highly affect our decisions and everyday lives. We studied the three moral theories including: Deontology, Utilitarianism and Rights-Ethics and studied their corresponding philosophers. By reading, annotating and analyzing these texts by the philosophers, we gained a greater understanding of each theory and how morals affect each individual. With this newfound knowledge, we interviewed someone posing several moral dilemmas, asking them questions on a specific political issue and what factors into their basic decisions. Then by using Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and Carol Gilligan’s moral theory, we analyzed each of the subject’s answers and categorized them into a moral theory and determined where they are in their moral development by writing a moral development essay. We then looked at the Constitution and discussed the aspects of what went into creating it. Afterwards we chose a current political issue and took a standpoint on the issue trying to propose a moral and just way to resolve it. In order to do this, we wrote an Op-Ed article that summarized the different viewpoints, our personal perspective and how we recommend “solving” this issue in the most just manner. We then created a poster that both displayed our thesis statement and that was aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding the project rubric, I felt that I was strongest in the area of perspective and rhetorical impact for my poster. The image I used and the fact that I made it black and white caused a pathos effect which emotionally impacted the viewers. I also think by putting the word “you” over the foot causes the audience to look at abortion in a different manner (as if they were the child). Though I was strong in perspective and rhetorical impact, I felt as though I was weakest in refinement. As I mentioned before, I felt that the poster itself was refined but that the quote could have looked more refined by projecting the font and tracing it on the border. For the Op-Ed article, I believe I was strongest in development and evidence. My ideas were fully expressed by beginning with making my claim, acknowledging the counterargument and then leading into my argument as to what is the just way to resolve abortion. These claims were than all backed up by connecting my argument to the Constitution and quotes from political philosophers. Even though I have a strong essay I feel that I was the weakest in sentence structure. I say this only because I did not use a variety of different sentence structures or forms such as NPAs and complex sentences which could have enhanced my article and made it more interesting to read. To improve this aspect of my writing, I could have spent more time deliberately looking at sentence form and looking at how I can enrich my sentences. I feel that throughout the rubric on both the poster and Op-Ed article I deserve an A. I met all the standards on the rubric and I pushed myself in my thinking and research in order to gain a more complete understanding of the political issue. I also took time to find different ways to approach the creation of my poster so I was able to produce a poster that could impact a larger range of people in a powerful way. I believe I deserve a 98% on my poster due to the fact that I felt it could have been more refined and that I deserve a 100% on my Op-Ed because I really pushed myself in my learning and research of the topic and I did a quality job of writing the article by acknowledging both sides of the argument and defending my argument with evidence and personal experience.
The Habit of Heart and Mind that I used the most during this project was perspective. Throughout this project I was challenged to look at various different viewpoints and see other peoples’ reasons as to why abortion should or should not be illegal. In the process of writing the essay, I had to acknowledge both sides of the argument and try to find the most just way to resolve the issue of abortion. In order to create this solution, I had to be able to put myself in both side’s shoes so I was able to acknowledge one argument and defend my reasoning. While creating the poster, I displayed perspective by the use of image and word choice. I purposely put the word “you” over the baby’s foot so that the audience would look at abortion in a different way by putting themselves in the baby’s position. In the end, I consistently used perspective by recognizing different people’s standpoints, tackling the argument from both the woman’s and baby’s perceptions and by researching writing by various political and religious groups to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the issue.
If I had another week to work on this project, I would have liked to refine my poster more. The poster itself looked refined, but the writing on the frame I felt could have been more polished. If I had more time I would have gone with my original plan to project the quote onto the frame so I could write it in nice handwriting. That way the poster would have looked more professional and could have potentially been more captivating to the viewers with the use of different fonts.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly.” Thomas Jefferson believed that you should act morally even if no one is looking. Our morals are a key part to our everyday life and of our society and they help guide many of our decisions. Morals enable a well-balanced society that gives a sense of security and liberty to the community. Without morals, society would degenerate into chaos. Religion, family, personal beliefs, culture and an internal sense of right and wrong all play a part into our moral reasoning. To gain a greater understanding of how people make moral decisions, I interviewed a 57 year old white male Christian orthopedic surgeon who lives in Durango, CO. He responded to several moral dilemma questions, current political questions and questions about how he judges what is right or wrong in his decisions as a doctor. To protect the subject’s identity, I have changed his name to subject P. Though P’s responses vary slightly through Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, it can be concluded that P straddles the conventional and post-conventional stage of moral development and looks at situations through a utilitarianism viewpoint.
When looking at subject P’s responses to the moral dilemma transplant case, it is apparent that subject P is aligned most directly with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that weighs pleasure against pain to determine what is of most benefit to the community (Carruth). If the majority of the people are happy, it is the morally right thing to do. When asked if it was morally mandatory to let one patient die in order to save five other patients, subject P replied by saying, “Nothing is mandatory. You have a choice. This is called triage. The maximum benefit would be to treat the five if all you have are limited resources” (personal interview, 9/24/12). Utilitarianists believe that creating the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is the morally right thing to do. In contrast, deontologists believe that we must act on purely good will and not look at the consequences or results. Subject P’s belief that everyone has a choice about every action they take and his desire of maximum benefit for everyone categorizes him into utilitarianism. In comparison, deontologists and rights ethicists believe that we have certain duties we must and must not do.
Another response that points subject P in the utilitarian direction is when he said that the doctor needs to save the five lives because he has a duty to do the most good and the least harm. This shows that he thinks of the greater result and effect his actions will have on the community. His consideration of the community and his consequential reasoning is a major characteristic of utilitarianism. In Catherine Rainbows article, Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles, she states, “The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct.” Utilitarianists base their actions upon two principles: how much their actions will positively affect the greatest amount of people, and what the consequences of their actions will be. When looking at a situation, a utilitarian looks at what produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Individualism is not taken into consideration. This clearly shows that subject P aligns with utilitarianism because the subject looked at both possible solutions to the problem and chose the one that would cause the most happiness for the most people. Though we have arrived at P’s moral theory alignment, looking at Kohlberg’s six stages of Moral Development Theory will give us a deeper understanding of P’s moral development.
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development is a theory that categorizes people’s moral thinking into six different stages (three levels) to determine one’s moral development. The three levels include; level one: pre-conventional morality, level two: conventional morality and level three: post-conventional morality. The pre-conventional level includes the two stages of obedience and punishment orientation (stage one), and individualism and exchange (stage two). The conventional level includes the two stages of good interpersonal relationships (stage three) and maintaining the social order (stage four). While the post-conventional level includes the two stages of social contract and individual rights (stage five), and universal principles (stage six).
It is most evident that subject P is in between the conventional and post-conventional stages when responding to Heinz’s dilemma. When asked the question if Heinz should steal the drug or not subject P replied, “It sounds like the druggist is selfish and unethical. I think at times it is reasonable to break the law to pursue a greater good. I think my love for my wife would outweigh my fear of getting caught and also the illegal nature of what I was doing (stealing the drug). I would need to be willing to pay the consequences of my theft, though. It would not be OK to shoot all the cops that came to arrest me.” This shows that he is in between the conventional and post-conventional level because he fits into the good interpersonal relationships (stage three) and shows signs of social contract and individual rights (stage five). When saying that the druggist is “selfish and unethical” he is indirectly emphasizing that Heinz is a good man and the druggist is a bad man which falls into stage three. Many people in stage three look at one person being the “good guy” and the other as being the “bad guy” and base their judgment by saying that it is morally okay for the good guy to break a law because he was a good person trying to do the right thing. When subject P says “I think, at times, it is reasonable to break the law to pursue a greater good” we see that the subject begins to fall into stage five. When people are deciding if an action is morally correct or not they make three things clear: first that the action is preserving basic rights such as liberty and life, second that the illegal action is causing a greater good for the society and lastly that they prefer not to break the law but if it is preserving someone’s basic rights it is morally permissible. This shows that P is potentially at stage five because P makes it clear that at times it is permissible to break a law if it is creating a greater good for society. However, there is some ambiguity when saying P is in stage five of moral development because it is unclear as to whether the subject would just save his spouse or if he would save anyone to create a greater good for society. To get a better understanding of P’s moral development, questions about current political events were asked.
When asked the question ‘what factors into the decision of being pro-life?’ subject P replied “Well I think my stance is based on my faith in God and also my respect for life as a human being. If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? I just don’t think you can get away from that question...” This supports the claim that subject P is at stage five because he not only acknowledges the “rules” of his religion, but the subject also takes into consideration his self-chosen principles. In Lawrence Kohlberg’s article, Moral stages and moralization the cognitive-developmental approach, Kohlberg writes, “Level III is a post-conventional person, who has differentiated himself from the rules and expectations of others and defines his values in terms of self-chosen principles” (204). Subject P took note of the expectations and rules of his religion but went further into explanation as to why he considers it immoral to abort a baby by saying that the respect he has for life is one of the major deciding factors in his decision. In this statement he is also displaying his opinions on rights to life as most do in stage five.
In W.C. Crain’s book, Theories of Development, (chapter 7) he explains that people in stage three look at good behavior as a main deciding factor. “Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her…” (Crain). In the same chapter, Crain describes people in stage five as looking for the greater good for the society, respecting basic rights and accepting the fact that at some points in time breaking the law is the morally permitted thing to do. “First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected. Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society. In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage five respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage five respondents sometimes defend Heinz’s theft…” This coincides with the previous statements that P’s moral development falls between a conventional and post-conventional stage because P not only thinks that the druggist is a bad man, but he believes that this would be a morally permitted occasion to break the law because P would be saving the one he loves.
As P has shown, morals contribute greatly into our individual lives and beliefs on modern day issues. And, on a larger scale, the different morals that each individual has plays a huge role in our society as a whole. Without these morals the world would be in a constant state of discord and we would be left without a basis for justice. After much analysis of subject P’s responses it can be determined that subject P looks at life through a utilitarian viewpoint and is currently between a conventional and post-conventional stage in his moral development.
Citations:
Carruth, A. Class lecture. 5 Sept. 2012.
Crain, W.C. "Kohlberg's Moral Stages." Kohlberg's Moral Stages. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. <http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm>.
Garrod, Andrew. "Moral Stages and Moralization The Cognitive-developmental Approach."Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and Development: Readings in Educational Psychology. Dubuque, Ia.: Kendall/Hunt, 1984. 201-12. Print.
"Principles and Theories." Principles and Theories. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm>.
Subject P. Personal Interview. 24 Sept. 2012.
Project Reflection
The purpose of this project was to look at a specific modern political issue and create a moral and just way for the government to handle the issue. For this project, we began by looking at moral dilemmas and how morals can highly affect our decisions and everyday lives. We studied the three moral theories including: Deontology, Utilitarianism and Rights-Ethics and studied their corresponding philosophers. By reading, annotating and analyzing these texts by the philosophers, we gained a greater understanding of each theory and how morals affect each individual. With this newfound knowledge, we interviewed someone posing several moral dilemmas, asking them questions on a specific political issue and what factors into their basic decisions. Then by using Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and Carol Gilligan’s moral theory, we analyzed each of the subject’s answers and categorized them into a moral theory and determined where they are in their moral development by writing a moral development essay. We then looked at the Constitution and discussed the aspects of what went into creating it. Afterwards we chose a current political issue and took a standpoint on the issue trying to propose a moral and just way to resolve it. In order to do this, we wrote an Op-Ed article that summarized the different viewpoints, our personal perspective and how we recommend “solving” this issue in the most just manner. We then created a poster that both displayed our thesis statement and that was aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding the project rubric, I felt that I was strongest in the area of perspective and rhetorical impact for my poster. The image I used and the fact that I made it black and white caused a pathos effect which emotionally impacted the viewers. I also think by putting the word “you” over the foot causes the audience to look at abortion in a different manner (as if they were the child). Though I was strong in perspective and rhetorical impact, I felt as though I was weakest in refinement. As I mentioned before, I felt that the poster itself was refined but that the quote could have looked more refined by projecting the font and tracing it on the border. For the Op-Ed article, I believe I was strongest in development and evidence. My ideas were fully expressed by beginning with making my claim, acknowledging the counterargument and then leading into my argument as to what is the just way to resolve abortion. These claims were than all backed up by connecting my argument to the Constitution and quotes from political philosophers. Even though I have a strong essay I feel that I was the weakest in sentence structure. I say this only because I did not use a variety of different sentence structures or forms such as NPAs and complex sentences which could have enhanced my article and made it more interesting to read. To improve this aspect of my writing, I could have spent more time deliberately looking at sentence form and looking at how I can enrich my sentences. I feel that throughout the rubric on both the poster and Op-Ed article I deserve an A. I met all the standards on the rubric and I pushed myself in my thinking and research in order to gain a more complete understanding of the political issue. I also took time to find different ways to approach the creation of my poster so I was able to produce a poster that could impact a larger range of people in a powerful way. I believe I deserve a 98% on my poster due to the fact that I felt it could have been more refined and that I deserve a 100% on my Op-Ed because I really pushed myself in my learning and research of the topic and I did a quality job of writing the article by acknowledging both sides of the argument and defending my argument with evidence and personal experience.
The Habit of Heart and Mind that I used the most during this project was perspective. Throughout this project I was challenged to look at various different viewpoints and see other peoples’ reasons as to why abortion should or should not be illegal. In the process of writing the essay, I had to acknowledge both sides of the argument and try to find the most just way to resolve the issue of abortion. In order to create this solution, I had to be able to put myself in both side’s shoes so I was able to acknowledge one argument and defend my reasoning. While creating the poster, I displayed perspective by the use of image and word choice. I purposely put the word “you” over the baby’s foot so that the audience would look at abortion in a different way by putting themselves in the baby’s position. In the end, I consistently used perspective by recognizing different people’s standpoints, tackling the argument from both the woman’s and baby’s perceptions and by researching writing by various political and religious groups to gain a more well-rounded understanding of the issue.
If I had another week to work on this project, I would have liked to refine my poster more. The poster itself looked refined, but the writing on the frame I felt could have been more polished. If I had more time I would have gone with my original plan to project the quote onto the frame so I could write it in nice handwriting. That way the poster would have looked more professional and could have potentially been more captivating to the viewers with the use of different fonts.