Approved June 24, 2002
DEBATING POLICY ISSUES
Level II
RATIONALE: Effective advocacy is an important skill for active and informed citizens and workers. To be a strong advocate, one must be able to analyze policy issues and to develop persuasive arguments both in support of positions one favors and against those with which one disagrees. To advocate successfully on a policy issue, whether supporting it or opposing it, requires a full understanding of the logical and ethical bases of different positions on the issue. One must understand the ways positions on specific issues are based on broader political, social, and philosophical perspectives. One must understand something of an issue’s historical development—how this issue became a controversy, what is at stake, and who takes what positions and why. One must be able to understand opposing positions in order to respond effectively to them.
Based on these understandings, one must be able to construct a strong argument which will be persuasive to as many people as possible—not just those who already agree but also those who are neutral or opposed.
This
competency provides students the tools they will need to be effective advocates
in work settings and in various forums promoting positive social change.
COMPETENCY: Can describe the historical roots of a significant and controversial policy issue, identify and analyze opposing positions on the issue, evaluate the positions and their implications for action, and construct a persuasive argument for one’s own position in relation to the positions analyzed.
CRITERIA:
1. Identify a controversial public policy issue and outline the range of positions currently being debated.
2. Briefly explain the significance of the issue and the historical roots of the current controversy.
3. Analyze at least two opposing positions in depth:
a. Describe and compare the ways each position defines key concepts central to the debate: for example, concepts of family and equality in relation to gay marriage; or concepts of work and justice in relation to welfare reform.
b. Identify and describe major moral and/or political beliefs underlying each position, such as beliefs about the proper role of government, basic human rights, the nature of social justice, authority and equality, the goodness or evil of human nature, etc.
c. Identify the major arguments for each position, including main claims, reasons, supporting evidence, and consequences or impacts.
d. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the positions described.
4. Present a strong argument for the position you favor, explaining your reasons for favoring it; or, alternatively, explain why you disagree with all positions you have presented or propose another position that you see as more desirable. Your argument should explain how the position you advocate reflects key values you hold as well as your own interests or stake in the issue. (For example, recognition that abolition of estate taxes will increase inequality and that as a low-income person, you gain nothing from this proposal).
PORTFOLIO LINKS: You are expected to use the Writing Portfolio criteria and standards as guidelines for the written products required by this competency. Papers written for this competency may be considered for submission to the Writing Portfolio.
STANDARDS:
1. For Criterion 1, the choice of issue and positions must be approved by an evaluator.
2.
For Criterion 2, the description of historical roots should include an account
of when and how this issue first became a matter of public debate in the
3. For Criterion 3, analysis of each of the positions selected must be of substantial depth, supported by relevant reasoning and evidence, and based on appropriate readings. The analysis must convey the complexities of the policy arguments.
4. For Criterion 4, evaluation of strengths and weaknesses should include assessment of:
a. the relevance and strength of the evidence
b. the logic and coherence of arguments made
c. relevant arguments not included that should have been
d. the strengths and weaknesses of underlying assumptions and key concepts, assessed with respect to their coherence and implications.
e. Your argument in Criterion 5 should include:
f. your reasons for favoring the position, plus supporting evidence
g. refutations of at least two major opposing views.
5. Criterion 5 can be addressed by writing an argument paper that follows the criteria and standards of the Argument essay in the Level III Communications Portfolio.
EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATION:
1. Prior Learning: A student has been active in her community as an advocate for domestic partner benefits. She decides to do an independent study on the issue of gay marriage, focusing on three positions: legalization of gay marriage, opposition to it, and legalization of partner benefits. She describes roots of the controversy in interpretations of the Bible and civil rights movements. She analyzes each position, focusing on differences in underlying views of the family and basic human rights. From her research, she develops a strong argument in favor of the legality and morality of domestic partnership laws.
2. Independent Learning: A student who plans to do a capstone advocating against capital punishment uses this competency to understand and evaluate different views of punishment, including deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The student connects these views to underlying assumptions about human nature, human responsibility, and human rights. He writes an advocacy paper in which he makes his case.
3. Field Project: A health care advocacy organization enlists a group of CPCS students, under faculty supervision, to identify and analyze all of the arguments that have been made regarding the desirability/undesirability of state-mandated medication or immunization, whether to prevent a mentally ill individual from possibly harming herself, or to prevent someone from possibly harming others through transmission of a venereal disease, or to prevent the spread of measles. After extended discussion among themselves, each member of the group individually presents an analysis of one of the arguments that they studied as a group and then her/his personal argument for or against state-required medication or immunization in certain circumstances.
4. Course: A student takes a course that addresses the Debating Policy Issues competency.