DEBATING SOCIAL ISSUES THROUGH CYBERSPACE
OBJECTIVES OF THE COURSE
Although the subject matter of social issues is familiar, it is often useful to look at it in an unfamiliar light, one that involves a variety of theories and perceptual frameworks. In fact, to properly understand social phenomenena, it should be looked at from several different points of view. In practice, however, this may lead to more friction than light, especially when each view proponent say, "I am right and you are wrong," rather than, "My view adds considerably to what your view has shown."
The purpose of this course, therefore, is to throw light on social issues and their relationship to the complex, confusing, and dynamic social world around us. It seeks to describe how society is organized and how individuals fit into it. We must realize that social disorganization is a fact of life--at least in modern, complex societies such as the one we live in. By studying various social issues we can propose some effective policy recommendations.
The job of policy makers is to balance the anticipated benefits against the probable costs. It can never hurt policymakers to know more about the society in which they work or the social issues they confront. That is really the purpose of this course. The course examines social issues that are central to the study of contemporary human lives.
OUTLINE OF THE COURSE
Any social issue possesses opposing view points. Therefore, this course adopts a pro and con format for the study of social issues.
(1) As a preparation for the course, read a relevant chapter in the textbook every week, and summarize "the issue," "the YES side," and "the NO side." Then, explain precisely and consicely which side you would like to take and the reason for it as well. All of these information must be stated in one page, A4-size paper, and double-spaced via E-mail prior to the session. Overdue E-mail messages will not be accepted by any means.
(2) Based on the input messages we will have a debate session through hyperspace on the topic assigned for each week. At the end of each session, we vote as to which side wins.
(3) In writing your term paper, select one topic of social issues that interests you most. Find appropriate references for both pro and con sides through INTERNET. Then, analyze the issue through comparative perspectives, and propose some policy recommendations for the future of the topic you address. Paper must be written in English, approximately 10-page on A4-size paper, double spaced.
TEXTBOOKS
Required:
Kurt Finsterbuch and George McKenna (eds.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Social Issues, 9th ed., The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1996.
Recommended:
Coleman & Cressey (eds.), Social Problems, 5th ed., Harper & Row, 1995.
Annual Editions: Social Problems 97/98, 25th ed., The Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1997.
Fumie Kumagai, UNMASKING JAPAN TODAY: THE IMPACT OF TRADITIONAL VALUES ON MODERN JAPANESE SOCIETY ( Praeger, 1996).
GRADING
Student evaluation will be based on:
(1) Summaries.................................................................30%
(2) Term Paper................................................................40%
(3) Participation to the Class Discussion...........30%
toward the final grade.
CLASS SCHEDULE FOR DEBATING SOCIAL ISSUES
SESSION 1. Does Third World Immigration Threaten America's Cultural Unity? (Taking Sides: Issue 3)
YES: Peter Brimelow, from Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (Random House, 1995)
NO: Francis Fukuyama, from "Immigrants and Family Values," Commentary (May 1993).
SESSION 2. Is Feminism a Harmful Ideology? (Taking Sides: Issue 4)
YES: Robert Sheaffer, from "Feminism, the Noble Lie," Free Inquiry (Spring 1995)
NO: William H. Chafe, from The Paradox of Change: American Women in the Twentieth Century (Oxford University Press, 1991)
SESSION 3. Is Sexual Harassment a Pervasive Problem in America? (Taking Sides: Issue 5)
YES: Ellen Bravo and Ellen Cassedy, from The 9 to 5 Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment (John Wiley & Sons, 1992).
NO: Gretchen Morgenson, from "May I Have the Pleasure," National Review (November 18, 1991).
SESSION 4. Should Society Be More Accepting of Homosexuality? (Taking Sides: Issue 6)
YES: Richard D. Mohr, from A More Perfect Union: Why Straight America Must Stand Up for Gay Rights (Beacon Press, 1994)
NO: Dennis Prager, from "Homosexuality, the Bible, and Us--A Jewish Perspective," The Public Interest (Summer 1993).
SESSION 5. Should Traditional Families Be Preserved? (Taking Sides: Issue 7)
YES: David Popenoe, from "The American Family Crisis," National Forum: The Phi Kappa Phi Journal (Summer 1995)
NO: Judith Stacey, from "Dan Quayle's Revenge: The New Family Values Crusaders," The Nation (July/August 1994)
SESSION 6. Is Economic Inequality Beneficial to Society? (Taking Sides: Issue 8)
YES: George Gilder, from Wealth and Poverty (Basic Books, 1981; Reissue, ICS Press, 1993).
NO: William Ryan, from Equality (Pantheon Books, 1981).
SESSION 7. Are the Poor Responsible for Their Poverty? (Taking Sides: Issue 9)
YES: Edward Banfield, from The Unheavenly City (Little, Brown, 1970; Reissues, Waveland Press, 1990).
NO: Jonathan Kozol, from "Poverty's Children: Growing Up in the South Bronx," The Progressive (October 1995)
SESSION 8. Should Affirmative Action Policies Be Discontinued? (Taking Sides: Issue 10)
YES: Arch Puddington, from "What to Do About Affirmative Action," Commentary (June 1995)
NO: Roger Wilkins, from "The Case for Affirmative Action: Racism Has Its Privileges," The Nation (march 27, 1995)
SESSION 9. Do Social and Mental Pathologies Largely Account for Homelessness? (Taking Sides: Issue 11)
YES: Myron Magnet, from The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties' Legacy to the Underclass (William Morrow, 1993).
NO: Jonathan Kozol, from Rachel and Her Children: Homeless Families in America (Crown Publishers, 1988).
SESSION 10. Is Government Dominated by Big Business? (Taking Sides: Issue 12)
YES: John C. Berg, from Unequal Struggle: Class, Gender, Race, and Power in the U.S. Congress (Westview Press, 1994).
NO: Jeffrey M. Berry, from "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (July 1993).
SESSION 11. Does Welfare Do More Harm Than Good? (Taking Sides: Issue 14)
YES: Charles Murray, from "What to Do About Welfare," Commentary (December 1994)
NO: Mark Robert Rank, from Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America (Columbia University Press, 1994)
SESSION 12. Is choice a Panacea for the Ills of Public Education? (Taking Sides: Issue 15)
YES: John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, from "America's Public Schools: Choice Is a Panacea," The Brookings Review (Summer 1990)
NO: Bill Honing, from "Why Privatizing Public Education Is a Bad Idea," The Brookings Review (Winter 1990/1991)
SESSION 13. Should Drugs Be Legalized? (Taking Sides: Issue 17)
YES: Ethan A. Nadelmann, from "Should We Legalize Drugs? Yes," American Heritage (February/March 1993).
NO: David T. Courtwright, from "Should We Legalize Drugs? No," American Heritage (February/March 1993).
SESSION 14. Is Incapacitation the Answer to the Crime Problem? (Taking Sides: Issue 18)
YES: Morgan O. Reynolds, from "Crime Pays, But So Does Imprisonment," Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies (Fall 1990)
NO: D. Stanley Eitzen, from "Violent Crime: Myths, Facts, and Solutions," Vital Speeches of the Day (May 15, 1995)
SESSION 15. Are Standards of Living in the United States Improving? (Taking Sides: Issue 20)
YES: W. Michael Cox and Ricahrd Alm, from "The Good Old Days Are Now," Reason (December 1995)
NO: Beth A. Rubin, from Shifts in the Social Contract: Understanding Change in American Society (Pine Forge Press, 1996)
GOOD LUCK ON YOUR TERM PAPER
AND
HAVE A GOOD TIME IN CYBERSPACE!