Project
Proposal Memorandum
Christopher P.
Galvin
Pursuing Justice,
Summer 2008-07-08
1) Project Description:
a.
This lesson will primarily deal
with the development of the modern surveillance state during WWI by discussing
two Supreme Court cases; Schneck v. U.S. (1919) and Abrams
v. U.S.
(1919). Obviously these lessons will be taught in concurrence with a unit on America during
WWI. Focusing on the enaction and enforcement of the Espionage and Sedition
Acts, these lessons will raise the issue of free speech in a democratic
society, especially during wartime.
b.
The main student learning activity
will be a classroom debate. Readings
of primary source documents and other literature, as well student writing about
the readings, will take place prior to the classroom debate. Therefore, this
lesson will take at least two classes. Each day is planned around an 84 minute
class period.
Day 1: This
class is needed to introduce students to the topics/cases at hand, distribute
literature, and to allow students to being their reading/writing about their
personal feelings on the issues at hand.
a)
Begin class with a question on the board for students to respond to on
loose-leaf: “Can a citizen openly criticize the government in time of war, even
if that speech advocates policies that are contrary to the American
government’s interests?” Give students five to ten minutes to respond.
b) Set historical context for
Espionage and Sedition Acts and how they came to pass.
c) Distribute excerpts from court
transcripts from both cases, as well Key Questions for students to answer while
reading these documents.
d) Introduce how both cases
came to the Supreme Court and identify the major legal, political, and social
issues surrounding them. Discuss these issues for a short time to initiate
student thinking about broader socio-political issues rather than just the
specifics of each case.
e) Allow students to begin
reading and answering their questions. Whatever they do not finish in class,
they will finish for homework.
Day 2: This
class is intended to allow students to form a well-informed and clearly
thought out personal stance on the initial question(s) posted on Day 1.
a) Quickly review/collect
homework, allow for some student discussion on the issues but allow for the
most part of the discussion to take place in the debate.
b) Have students rewrite their
personal stance paragraphs with the knowledge they have gained for reading the
documents. c) When students are
finished, put them in like-minded groups of three or four. Then instruct the
students that they will have to write an effective counter-argument to their
own point of view. This will prepare them for the debate, as sides will be
chosen randomly by picking a number out of hate. (Perhaps here I could use John
Burt’s exercise on “persuasive engagement and the suicidally apodictic”.
However, more class time would be needed.)
d) Reflect/discuss with the
students on the level of difficulty they had with this process. Discuss why it
is beneficial, when in an argument/debate, to understand you opponent’s
position.
e) Divide classroom randomly
and have the desks of the two sides facing one another with an isle for the
mediator (teacher) to walk through. Begin debate by posing the main essential
question for the lesson again. Allow debate to take up a half hour, use more
time if needed.
f) For homework, have students
write a reflection on how the debate went and what does the surveillance state
mean to them in the context of the Patriot Act and the current FISA legislation.
c. Excerpts from Court Transcripts of Schneck
v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S..
Excerpts from Patriot Act and FISA
legislation
Excerpts from Richard Polenberg’s
“Fighting Faiths”
2) Research Question/Essential
Questions:
a)
Can a citizen openly criticize the
government in time of war, even if that speech advocates policies that are
contrary to the American government’s interests?
b)
Can Americans go so far as to
publicly advocate and pursue activities that undermine the government’s
interests?
c)
Does the government have the right
to spy on citizens, even if there is no evidence that the citizen in question
has done anything “wrong”?
d)
If citizens cannot criticize
government, does this limit the ways in which social change/progress can be
made?
e)
Other ideas to be discussed:
Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas”, the clear
and present danger clause, the American revolutionary identity, the direct
incitement test, etc.
3) Scale of Project: One
lesson that will take two class periods to complete.
4) Student Assessment: Informal assessment will take place
during class discussion and during the debate. Formal assessment will take
place by collecting, reading, and grading student position paragraphs and their
reflections.
5) Resources: a)
Information gained through Prof. Willrich’s seminar.
b)
Richard Polenburg’s Fighting Faiths
c)
Court Transcript’s of Schneck v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S.
d)
The American Constitution
e)
The Declaration of Independence
f)
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
g) Justice Holmes and the
Modernization of Free Speech Jurisprudence: The Human Dimension, by G. Edward
White, California
Law Review (1992).
h)
Geoffrey R. Stone’s Perilous Times
g) http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#terminiello
6) Other
Questions/Problems/Concerns: Here is my personal take on the Abrams
case, which is posted on the website under the Fitchburg State Year 2 Forum:
In regards to the Abrams v. U.S.
case, I would like to take the U.S.
government to task for imposing the Sedition and Espionage Acts in the first
place. I would also like to pose a question to the rest of you to get your take
on the matter: Is not the nature of what it means to be an American to question
and challenge government? Is not the rebel spirit indelibly attached to America’s
identity?
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Abrams v. U.S., seems to be stifling the revolutionary
nature of what is at the root of America’s identity. Immigrants like
Abrams and his cohorts came to this country because it was a “free” country,
where people could speak their minds. The Declaration states “…That to secure
these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it…that governments long established should not be changed for transient
causes…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the
same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…”.
Therefore, it is the right of every American to protest
laws or government actions that the citizen deems immoral or destructive. It
could be argued that WWI was a “transient cause” and that the Espionage and
Sedition Acts were impulsive actions taken by the government in order to suit
its own needs at the present time. Given that the American Revolution took
place in large part because of revolutionary literature which was “…unlawfully
and willfully, by utterance, writing, printing and publication, to urge, incite
and advocate curtailment of production of things and products, to wit, ordnance
and ammunition, necessary and essential to the prosecution of war.”, it seems
to me to be highly hypocritical for any government to stifle the very sort of
language which made itself possible.
The
concern I have is, Do you think that this “radical” viewpoint would be accepted
in American Public Schools? Do you think I will receive any backlash from this
standpoint?
Also,
perhaps more importantly, are there any published academic works that could
back up this claim?
Christopher P. Galvin
Social Studies Dept.
Marshfield High School