Instructions
The paper (4–6 pages long) is due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool
on Canvas by midnight Wednesday, June 14.
The topics listed here are suggestions. If you want to write on another topic,
feel free to do so. It might be a good idea, in that case, to check with me first, but
that is only advice, not a requirement.
Note that the topics tend to have many sub-questions. You need not (and
probably should not) try to answer all of them. (You certainly should not just
answer them one after another in order — that would make a bad paper.) I put
them there to suggest various directions for thinking about the topic, and in
particular to head off superficial or excessively simple ways of thinking about
it.
All of the topics are intended to facilitate making substantial use of material
from at least two of our authors, which I recommend (although, again, this is not
required). You can also write about more than two if you feel that improves your
paper. (Obviously in such a short paper there is not room for a substantial
treatment of many different figures. But sometimes just a brief allusion is enough
to make an important point.)
You can also use other outside material if you think it helps your paper (though I
don’t necessarily recommend that). If you do, you must of course make it clear
exactly what you are using and how. Also, it should still be clear that the paper
was written for this course. If you have any questions about what plagiarism is or
how to avoid it, you can ask me, or consult the resources listed on the Library
website.[1]https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/citesources/plagiarism.
For possible consequences of plagiarism, see the Academic Misconduct
Policy.[2]https://www.ue.ucsc.edu/academic_misconduct.
Since we are all in America, if not all Americans, these topics all touch us
personally, and I don’t think it would be possible (or good) to write about them
without manifesting at least some feelings of one’s own. Nevertheless, the main
intent of the paper is to discuss the views or attitudes manifested in the reading,
rather than your own opinions on the topic. That is: you should ideally come up
with something interesting and original to say (not mere summary), but it should
something interesting and original about what our authors mean. (In particular: I
don’t expect or encourage you to reach a final judgment about whether
what they say is correct or not.) If you are upset by something one of our
authors says, or find it ridiculous, you should use that as an excuse to
try and understand better why someone would say such a thing. If you
can’t manage that, you should probably consider writing about something
else.
For a good comparison paper, remember that the comparison should be
interesting. This means, for example, that the paper should not read like two
shorter papers (one on each author) stuck together. Also it should say something
non-obvious about their similarities and differences. (It is always possible to make
any two positions sounds similar if one is vague enough. But that isn’t
interesting.)
If you’re using the readings I posted on Canvas or the editions I ordered, you
can refer to the readings just by giving the title and page number. If you use a
different edition and/or some other source, please give at least enough
bibliographical information, in whatever format you prefers, that I can
find it if necessary. There’s no need for a separate bibliography or title
page.
You can find answers to some commonly asked questions about my
assignments and grading in my FAQ.
This document, and all other instructor-generated material in this course, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.