This paper invites you to apply some of your analytical skills to an important topical debate: whether or not the U.S. government should pay reparations to African-Americans. You have already read two short pieces on this topic; you will read at least two more assigned articles that take different positions and offer different evidence.
The critical thinking context: This assignment asks you to apply the logic ideas you’ve worked on:
- standard form (summarizing arguments as premises & conclusions)
- distinguishing statements of fact, inference and judgment
- understanding the two-step process of induction-deduction (generalize, apply)
- listening for unspoken assumptions underlying arguments.
Preparing for the paper: To develop your ideas for this paper, read the articles assigned, and make notes on the following questions:
- What is each writer’s conclusion, and what broadly are their premises? (i.e., how would you put the argument into standard form)?
- Of the most important premises, can you identify some facts? some inferences? some statements of judgment?
- Select three or four points that you found most thought-provoking. They don’t have to line up on one side or another; both those arguing for reparations, and those arguing against, might well have said something that gave you pause for thought.
- Why did these statements stand out? Did they put into words something you already thought? Did they make a point that you hadn’t considered? Were they convincing? Did they connect to some experience or idea of your own?
- Stand back and consider the whole debate. Is anything missing – some question that no one’s raising, some claim that no one’s really giving evidence for, some term that no one is unpacking? If (and only if!) you see something missing, note it down here.
- Write a brief bulleted summary of the debate as a whole – i.e., the reasons for reparations; the reasons against reparations.
YOUR TASK: Think of yourself as addressing a reader who knows nothing of the debate over reparations – what they are, why some people believe they are a good idea, and why some people oppose them.
Bring your reader up to speed by summarizing the debate briefly, outlining the main points for each side fairly and clearly; then explain your own response – where do you stand on this issue?
Your response should be
- Thoughtful. You don’t have to join a side. You might strongly agree or disagree with reparations, in which case you need to explain why some of the inferences, facts or judgments presented by the other side don’t cut it. But it’s also perfectly OK to give a mixed response: to say that you’re not sure what to think, because some premises on both sides convince you.
- Grounded in the assigned readings. You may agree or disagree for reasons that no one has touched on (the gaps in the debate) and you can certainly present these. But you should also respond to some of the relevant key points raised in the readings. If neither side has convinced you, what did they say that you didn’t quite buy, and why? If you do take a strong position, why has the other side not convinced you? If you’ve changed your mind, what changed it? Your explanations should draw explicitly on the assigned readings – they, and you, are all joining the same debate.
- Informed by the logic work we’ve done. You don’t have to list the standard form summaries in your essay, or try to flag each premise as a statement of fact or judgment. But your summary of the debate overall should reflect your ability to simplify an argument to premises and conclusions; and your discussion of what is and isn’t convincing should reflect an understanding of the sorts of claims the writers are making. If you are unconvinced by someone’s argument, do you have problems with their judgments? Do you feel they haven’t justified an inference? Do you doubt the relevance or truth of their facts?
Requirements:
- 1,000-1,500 words
- MLA citation format (but will give you a pass on this since I’m just adding this now!)
Essay due Sunday night, 9/19
Reading:
- Ta-Nehisi Coates – Testimony to Congress in favor of reparations, June 2019 & Coleman Hughes – Testimony to Congress against reparations, June 2019 – both in the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes
- Seth Cohen. “An Overdue Debt.” Forbes, 6/21/2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/06/21/its-finally-time-to-pay-black-americans-reparations/?sh=2a3c73665cb5 - Kevin Williamson: “The Case Against Reparations,” National Review Online, 5/24/2014
https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/case-against-reparations-kevin-d-williamson/
OPTIONAL (this is an excellent article, but it’s very long):
- Ta-Nehisi Coates: “The Case For Reparations.” The Atlantic, June 2014.
At the Atlantic website: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
0 comments