Final Exam

The final exam is at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, December 15th. It's in our normal classroom.

The Car That Gives You That Warm Feeling

Here are some links about consumer safety and the Pinto:

• So what exactly was dangerous about the Pinto?
• Here's a law review article debunking some of the misconceptions about the Pinto court case.
• Here's the full version of the 1977 Mother Jones investigative report on the Pinto that we read for class.
• Ralph Nader came up a few times in this section of our textbook. He first became known for his consumer safety advocacy and his book on car safety.
  
• Is it inappropriate to put a dollar amount on the value of life? Well, it's been done for a while, there's a whole field devoted to it, and it turns out that the amount varies from job to job and industry to industry.
  
• There are still some Pinto enthusiasts out there.
  

Finally, here are some videos. First, here's an actual Pinto bursting into flames after a rear-end collision:

Second, here's a fictional version of an exploding Pinto from the comedy Top Secret!:

Intellectual Honesty

An important claim I make in class is that, although it has many benefits, advertising is a fundamentally intellectually dishonest medium. So here's a little rant on the topic of intellectual honesty to help explain what I mean.

A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But it's not clear that we're caring about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If someone likes an arg, but still stubbornly disagrees with its conclusion, she is just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. This is how Todd Glass puts it:


Admitting when we're wrong, or simply ignorant, is a very important step in intellectual honesty. Here's an excerpt from a podcast I listen to called Jordan, Jesse GO! about owning our ignorance:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I just read on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

After These Sponsors...

Here are some links on advertising ethics.

• The first is about the underlying intellectual dishonesty in even the most honest of ad campaigns.
  
• By the way, if you're into advertising, that entire blog is great. I'm a bit biased, though, since I used to work with the guy who writes it.
• Here's a radio interview with the director of FactCheck.org, a great website devoted to debunking claims in political ads.
• I also used to work with the guy who interviewed FactCheck's director. Yup, I'm a pretty big deal.

Finally, here's a recent Saturday Night Live skit on the distortions of political ads:

Extra Credit: Mom's Clippings

Since I started teaching business ethics, my mom has sent me a bunch of articles that she thinks would be helpful for the class. So I thought I'd use her gifts to create an optional extra credit assignment, due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, December 10th.

Below are links to these articles. (As you can see, she reads a lot of Newsweek.) The assignment is to write a short (about one-page) response to one of these articles. The response should include the following:

• A brief summary of the article (no more than a paragraph).
  
• An explanation of your opinion regarding the ethical issue the article brings up.
• A defense of your opinion. Support your opinion with good reasons!
  

The response doesn't have to be typed. You won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion. This assignment is worth up to 25 points.

Mom's Clippings
-How Much Privacy Do You Have at Work? (Newsweek)
-Humane Fast Food? (Newsweek)
-Salmon Fishing Crash (Newsweek)
-The Business Behind Niagara Falls (Newsweek)
-The Financial Crisis Disproves Libertarianism (Slate)
-The Invisible Hand Still Works (Newsweek)
-David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster (Gourmet)
-Nudge: Government Paternalism (Chronicle of Higher Education)
-You Don't Deserve Your Salary (San Francisco Chronicle)
-How Obvious Was Enron? (New Yorker)
-Free Market for Organ Donations? (New York Times Magazine)
-Company Rewards Workers... with Its Profit! (MSNBC)

Email Privacy

Here are some links on email privacy.

• Legally speaking, are workers entitled to email privacy? Not really.
• But wait: there's a recent court ruling on employee text messages that could start changing things. (Thank Mama Landis for that link!)
• Here's the interview on the radio show I used to work for with the ESPN employee who was fired after ESPN monitored his emails.

As always, feel free to email me. I promise to keep our correspondence confidential.

Paper Guidelines

Due Date: The beginning of class on Monday, December 15th, 2008

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

Logistics: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 600-1200 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

Assignment: Explain and evaluate a pair of articles from our textbook that we do not go over in class.

• First, briefly explain each main argument in the two articles you read. (Choose pairs from those listed below.)
• Then, evaluate each argument. Are the premises true, false, or questionable? Is the structure good or bad? Consider criticisms to each argument, along with responses to these criticisms.
• Finally, explain and defend your opinion on the issue. Which side—if either—do you think is correct? Why? Be sure to defend each of your opinion with reasons.
  

Topics (readings and page numbers from our textbook)
1. Can restructuring a corporation’s rules make a moral difference?
-Josef Wieland (25-37) and Ian Maitland (38-53).

2. Is it a mistake to urge corporate managers to be moral?
-John Boatright (74-81) and Jack Guynn (82-90)

2. Is privatizing Social Security good business?
-David Altig & Jagadeesh Gokhale (94-112) and Thomas Bethell (113-119)

3. Should the states regulate appropriate business behavior?
-Eliot Spitzer (122-131) and Alan Yuspeh (132-142)

4. Is “employment-at-will” good social policy?
-Richard Epstein (221-226) and John McCall (227-244)

5. Is direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals bad for our health?
-Sidney Wolfe (281-285) and Alan Holmer (286-290)

6. Should we require labeling for genetically modified food?
-Philip Bereano (322-328) and Joseph Levitt (329-338)

7. Are multinational corporations free from moral obligation?
-Manuel Velasquez (342-347) and John Fleming (348-351)

8. Should patenting life be forbidden?
-Jeremy Rifken (354-359) and William Domnarski (360-364)

9. Do environmental restrictions violate basic economic freedoms?
-John Shanahan (368-377) and Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich (378-386)

10. Is bottling water a good solution to problems of water purity and availability?
-Julie Stauffer (389-392) and Brian Howard (393-405)

11. Should the world continue to rely on oil as a major source of energy?
-Red Cavaney (408-411) and Howard Kunstler (412-417)

The Banality of Evil

Here are some links related to our discussion about the documentary we watched in class:

• Hannah Arendt's thesis about the banality of evil.
• More on Hannah Arendt.

Also, here are some deleted scenes from a recent episode of "The Office" titled "Business Ethics." You can watch the entire episode online.

"The Corporation"

The two-part movie below is "The Corporation," the documentary we're watching in class.



So what did you think of the movie?

Midterm on Monday

This is just a reminder that the midterm is on Monday, November 3rd.

Also, CONGRATS TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL!

Everyday Low Wages

Here are some links related to our third consensus session on Wal-Mart:

• Is Wal-Mart good for the working class? Here's a great debate between an economist who says yes and an activist who says no.
• How did Wal-Mart become the biggest retailer? What we read for class said Sam Walton's big idea was that lower prices would increase total sales and lead to higher profits. But another important development was how Wal-Mart streamlined its inventory process.
  
• Yes, Wal-Mart has low prices, and apparently the prices at other stores also go down in the long run when a Wal-Mart comes to town.
• Here are many of the common criticisms of Wal-Mart.
  
• Beware of false dilemmas! This isn't a zero-sum game: Wal-Mart doesn't have to raise its prices to raise its wages.
• Here's the full episode of South Park about a "Wall-Mart" coming to town. Below are some clips from the episode.
  

Incorporate Responsibly

Here are some links related to our second consensus session topic on corporate responsibility:

• A concise article on Milton Friedman, from a free online economics encyclopedia. (How many free online encyclopedias do you think I know about?)
• Friedman played a big role in making libertarianism and laissez-faire economic policies seem cool again...
  
• ... although the current financial collapse might be killing libertarianism.

What's this current financial collapse all about, anyway? Here's a bunch of pretty good stuff on it:

• How did the subprime mortage crisis happen? The radio show This American Life gives a great explanation, and radio host Terry Gross asks Michael Greenberger to explain it.
• Why did the mortgage crisis lead to the collapse of huge financial companies? This American Life gives another great explanation. OK, Greenberger does, too.
  
• There's also this short play on the role that credit default swaps and netting (or hedging) played in the collapse of those huge financial companies.
  

Finally, we wondered in class which members of a business are required to be socially responsible. Should we focus on the owners, or the management, or the employees? The following scene from Clerks suggests that Kevin Smith believes we should focus on all of them.

Cap & Com

Here are some links related to our first consensus session topic on capitalism and communism.

• An advanced overview of the writings of Karl Marx, from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia.
• An advanced overview of the writings of Adam Smith, from another free online philosophy encyclopedia.
  
• George Will gives an explanation of the invisible hand's emergent control of a free market.
• Wait, what's emergence?
  
• Is America's economy capitalist? Well, not exactly. So what should we call it?
  

Cole Hamels Is An Exception

Thanks to the mysterious "Eric from your Rowan class," our anti-I'M-SPECIAL-ism pin made it to the first Phillies playoff game on Wednesday. Not to go against the message of the pin or anything, but I'm taking credit for the win. Clearly the pin is lucky.

Consensus Session Guidelines

Most Wednesdays we’ll be holding a consensus session on the current issue we’ll be discussing. Groups of about 4 students will be responsible for leading these consensus sessions.

Your group’s first job is to understand and evaluate the arguments contained in the readings for your issue. (You can find which group you're in here, and find which articles your group is assigned to on the schedule here.)

Then you should reach a group-wide consensus as to whether each argument is good or bad. During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your findings regarding the arguments to the rest of the class, and lead a class-wide consensus session on each argument.

When preparing, play the back & forth game. That is, consider as many responses to the argument and your criticisms of it as you can think of. Is the argument misguided? Mistaken? Can you revise the argument to overcome the criticisms you come up with?

NOTE: It doesn’t matter which side you end up on! The goal isn’t to say what’s wrong about the argument. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

When you lead the consensus session, follow the following steps:

Consensus Session Format
1. Explain the main point of the reading.

2. Explain the author’s argument in support of this main point.

3. Say whether you think the argument is good or bad.

4. Explain how you came to the conclusion that the argument is good/bad. Discuss the back & forth process you went through to come to your conclusion.

5. Hold a small question and answer round to explain and clarify the argument and your evaluation of it.

6. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up or down vote) with the rest of class.

7. Go back & forth with every dissenter until a consensus is reached (or class ends).

Quiz Me Once

The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Monday, September 29th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating arguments, and 4 short answer questions on the topic of whether moral claims are facts or opinions (the ethical relativism and Thomas Nagel readings). The quiz is worth 10% of your overall grade.

Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.

Understanding Args

Here are the answers to the extra credit assignment on understanding arguments.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.

7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

9 (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

11. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website, and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website.

Relative to You, But Not to Me

Here are some links on ethical relativism.

• an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism (from a free online philosophy encyclopedia)
• An interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of ethical relativism
• An argument against the DIVERSITY THESIS: cultures morally agree more than they disagree
• A webcam dialogue on morality, psychology, and religion
• Cannibalism!

Evaluating Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All bats are mammals.
All mammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

Overall Good (good structure and true premises)

2) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

Bad Structure (what if a dog were a student in our class?), so
Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

3) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush is either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush isn’t a great prez.
Bush is the greatest prez.

Questionable Premises, so Overall Bad (even though it has a good structure)

4) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall.

Bad Structure (there could be a lot of tall students in here even if most humans aren't tall), so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

5) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

Bad Structure (only some are funny, so I don't have to be funny), so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

6) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

False 2nd Premise (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

7) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

Questionable 1st Premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

8) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

Bad Structure (students could cringe for a different reason) (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad

9) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

Bad Structure, so Overall Bad (even though the premises are true)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

Questionable 1st premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

11) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

Questionable 2nd premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

Bad Structure (I don't have to sing for students to cringe) and False 2nd premise (and questionable 1st premise), so Overall Bad

13) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

Questionable 1st Premise and False 2nd Premise, so Overall Bad (even though the structure is good)

(More on Sisyphus)

Thomas Nagel Reading

In case you didn't get a copy of the Thomas Nagel handout assigned to read for Monday, it is available online here.

Enjoy!

Consensus Session Groups

Here are the groups for our consensus sessions:

1. Capitalism vs. Communism (10/1): Kevin, Ryan, Samantha P., Yaz
2. Corporate Responsibility (10/8): Nick, Sean P., Sean R.
3. Wal-Mart (10/15): Danielle H., Kyle, Sam K., Tim
4. Enron (10/22): Adele, Kristin, Laurie, Matt G.
5. Whistleblowing (11/12): Bill, Coleen, Dave, Matt M.
6. Employee Privacy (11/19): Alexia, Jeff, Matt T., Teresa,
7. CEO Compensation (11/26): Danielle T., Devin, Pat, Scott
8. Advertising Ethics (12/3): Aaron, Edward, Lauren, Toni
9. Product Safety (12/10): C.J., Natasha, Sean M., Vasil

Defining Our Terms

1. Tool: Here's one Urban Dictionary definition of "tool," the one I had in mind when referring to Dane Cook:

someone who tries too hard. a poser. one of those chic's who holds the sign saying "Carson Daly is Hot." the asstard who goes to a rock show because they heard one of the songs on the radio or mtv. or someone who insists on wearing velour sweat suits. Avril Lavigne.

2. Fugly: uh, rather ugly. Moe Szyslak has been called a few variations of this term.

3. Emo Kid: "Emo" has a ton of meanings. The wikipedia article on "emo" has a nice history of the term. Plus, there's always stand-up comedian Emo Phillips:


Did I forget any terms? Let me know!

Why? Why? Why?

Here's a video of comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask (the routine starts 2:40 into the video).

Louis CK - Why?
"SOMETHING HAS TO ISN'T! EVERYTHING CAN'T IS!"

Buy the Textbook

If you don't want to wait for me to straighten out our book order with the Rowan Bookstore, you can buy the textbook here:

Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society

I'll let you know as soon as the book is available at the bookstore. Sorry for the mix-up!

Email Subscriptions

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://rowanbizethics.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; landis@rowan.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Schedule

September 3: Intro to Class
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)

September 8—10: Doing Philosophy/Ethics
Monday: Doing Philosophy | (no reading)
Wednesday: Doing Philosophy continued | Relativism (handout)

September 15—17: Ethics
Monday: Are moral claims facts or opinions? | Thomas Nagel (handout)
Wednesday: Do consequences or motives matter? | Ethical Theories (handout)

September 22—24: Ethics/Quiz
Monday: Ethical Theories continued | (no new reading)
Wednesday: QUIZ #1; Sample Consensus Session

September 29—October 1: Capitalism vs. Communism
Monday: Capitalism | Adam Smith (pages 1-11)
Wednesday: Communism | Karl Marx (pages 12-20); Consensus Session #1

October 6—8: Corporate Responsibility
Monday: Corporate Responsibility | Robert Hay & Edmund Gray (pages 54-64)
Wednesday: Corporate Responsibility | Milton Friedman (pages 65-71); Consensus Session #2

October 13—15: Managers and Employees: Wal-Mart
Monday: Wal-Mart | Sam Walton & John Huey (pages 143-151)
Wednesday: Wal-Mart | George Miller (pages 152-157); Consensus Session #3

October 20—22: Government Regulation: Enron
Monday: Enron | Richard Rosen (pages 158-161)
Wednesday: Enron | Chris Culp & Steve Hanke (pages 162-188); Consensus Session #4

October 27—29: Midterm
Monday: catch up & review for Midterm | (no new reading)
Wednesday: MIDTERM

November 3—5: The Corporation
Monday: “The Corporation” (in-class movie) (no new reading)
Wednesday: “The Corporation” continued; class discussion (no new reading)

November 10—12: Whistleblowing
Monday: Whistleblowing | Sissela Bok (pages 189-199)
Wednesday: Whistleblowing | Robert Larmer (pages 200-208); Consensus Session #5

November 17—19: Employee Privacy Rights
Monday: Email Monitoring | Chauncey DePree & Rebecca Jude (pages 209-214)
Wednesday: Email Monitoring | USA Today (pages 215-218); Consensus Session #6

November 24—26: CEO Compensation
Monday: CEO Compensation | Ira Kay (pages 245-254)
Wednesday: CEO Compensation | Edgar Woolard (pages 255-262); Consensus Session #7

November 27th-30th: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class) (woo?)


December 1—3: Businesses and Consumers
Monday: Advertising Ethics | John Foley (pages 263-270)
Wednesday: Advertising Ethics | Gene Laczniak (pages 271-278); Consensus Session #8

December 8—10: Product Liability
Monday: The Pinto | Mark Dowie (pages 291-307)
Wednesday: The Pinto | Ford Motor Company (pages 308-319); Consensus Session #9

December 15—17: Final Exam
Monday: PAPER due; review for Final Exam
Wednesday: FINAL EXAM

Course Details

Business Ethics
Rowan University, Fall 2008
Philosophy 09322, Section 01
Tuesdays and Thursdays, 4:45 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Bunce Hall, Room 106

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: landis@rowan.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://rowanbizethics.blogspot.com

Required Text
Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society, 10th Edition, Lisa H. Newton & Maureen M. Ford

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to thinking critically about the ethics of economics and modern business practices. Throughout the semester, we are going to explore a handful of issues in business ethics, such as: Is capitalism an ethical economic system? Should corporations be socially responsible? Should governments regulate business practices?

In examining these topics, it is my hope that we can also develop the skills of doing philosophy—understanding and evaluating others’ attempts to answer puzzling moral questions. Ultimately, though, our main goal is to learn decision-making tools we can use to provide our own answers to these ethical dilemmas. Hopefully, this course will demonstrate that careful, systematic, and critical thought about moral quandaries can be fruitful.

Grades
A = 934-1000 total points
A- = 900-933 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D+ = 667-699 total points
D = 634-666 total points
D- = 600-633 total points
F = below 600 total points

Midterm 20%
Final 35%
Quiz 10%
Consensus Leading 15%
Paper 15%
Attendance/Participation 5%

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (80 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will also last 80 minutes, and will take place on the last day of class.

Quiz: There will be one quiz, taken during the 4th week of class. The quiz will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Consensus Leading: For each issue we discuss, we will be holding a consensus session in an effort to determine whether we agree or disagree with the main points of the reading assignment for that issue. Groups of about 4 students will lead one consensus session by first giving a brief (5-10 minute) presentation and evaluation of the main arguments of the reading, and then running the consensus vote process itself.

Paper: There will be one paper (about 600-1000 words long) due toward the end of the semester. The assignment will be to explain and evaluate a pair of articles from our textbook that we do not go over in class.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. Also, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester. Group work can impact your attendance grade.

Extra Credit: There will be some optional extra credit assignments available throughout the semester.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarism. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury – with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.