Wednesday, October 2nd

EXTRA CREDIT:
To encourage more frequent checking of my DP (for no other reason than to offer you an awe-inspiring aesthetic experience as my DP is stunning) I will sporadically throw some E.C. points your way.
SO, 2 points E.C. to those who, by 8:14 Wednesday morning, email me a funny yet appropriate youtube video that is less than 2 minutes long.


GOALS

• Analyze Stop and Frisk through the lens of moral philosophy and justice as defined by security, liberty and equality.
  
• Defend your stance on the constitutionality of Stop and Frisk

Today's fishbowl seminar

1. Go over the Fishbowl Seminar instructions

2. Seminar

• 2 rounds, 8 minutes each per group

• Outer circle: take notes on ideas in the inner circle that you will directly respond to or build off of when it is your turn.
  

Round 1: 
 Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin rules: "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, [New York Police] have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting 'the right people' is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution."

• To what extent do you agree with Judge Scheindlin’s statement?  
• What evidence do you have that backs you up? (For 1 minute you can only cite evidence that is pathos, then 1 minute on ethos, then 1 minute on logos)

• What are arguments on the opposing side?
  

Round 2:  Follow-up questions
1.  Which constitutional amendments does it violate?

2. What are the most persuasive pieces of rhetorical evidence in support of your position? You must cite one example of pathos, ethos and logos and explain how it is pathos, ethos or logos.

3. Which moral philosophy (Libertarianism, Deontology, Rawls’ Justice as Fairness or Utilitarianism) would support your position and why?