Third Quarter in the Game

Only about half the players came suited up for the right sport. Some wore hockey jerseys, others their tennis togs, but the game for ten percent of their final grade was not for playing those sports. True, about half came to class prepared to play, pumped up and yes, their grade was earned in full.

Creative controversy is an activity that is multi-part. Students are assigned the viewing of the Academy Award nominated documentary "The Most Dangerous Man in America" (available on Netflix). The two-hour film is about the life of Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon analyst, the secret report about five American presidencies and our policy in Vietnam, and the New York Times v. United States, the landmark first amendment case. Students watch the film, then we discuss Ellsberg's personal journey and the developments in the story. Then they are asked to read accounts of the trial and to extract from these readings the reasons given by the Supreme Court justices for voting the way they did, 6-3 in favor of the New York Times.

Finally, with the notes from their readings, they begin the oral presentation section of the 'creative controversy' exercise. They first are shown a brief but important exchange between people on opposing teams. It is the "This is me, this is my idea" exercise:

Each of a pair of students has a piece of paper with the words "This is Me" written on it. Each then writes on another sheet, "This is my idea". Students are reminded that while we may have different or opposing ideas, those are still different than who we are as people. We can dislike an idea while still remaining respectful of each other. One student says "This is Me" holding the paper to their chest, while holding out in their other hand the paper that reads "This is my idea." The other student repeats the process. The first student then says "I like you, but I only like half of your idea," reaches to the other student and tears her sheet with "This is my idea" written on it. The second student is usually, and naturally, in mock shock over this, but does the same to the first student. The third step is the most important. The students place their torn 'ideas' sheets together, and together they twist them, saying "If we sit down together, talk and work hard on this, we can come up with options and alternatives to 'your' idea and 'my' idea."

The students are placed in groups of four, with two teams of two each, prepared to represent either the pro or con side of the Pentagon Papers case in timed, two-minute presentations. The selections of students and pro or con are random. One team, a Pro Veteran and Pro Rookie stand and face the opposing team, made up of a Con Veteran and Con Rookie.

The Pro Vet student speaks for up to two minutes, uninterrupted, using notes, giving the best arguments he considers for the government's side of the case. No personal opinions are allowed. Then the Pro Con student speaks rebutting with the best arguments she has extracted from the decision and accounts of the case. The Pro Rookie then rebuts for two minutes, followed by the Con Rookie who rebuts with his best arguments.

 The teams compare notes for a few minutes then the Pro team becomes the Con team, and the Con team becomes the Pro team, and the process begins again. After the teams complete their second round of presentations, they sit and create sets of alternatives and options to the Pentagon Papers case in the present year, with existing, current technologies, such as the Internet. Their experience has seen them in the shoes of opposing sides, and their understanding of what was at stake in the case is now more clear than if we had simply seen the film and discussed it. They suited up and fought for the ideas just as the lawyers in the case had, and their arguments were from the court's written decisions.

The case is interesting for many, many reasons. From the standpoint of journalism, the government's position on national security, the issue of prior restraint, and more. The justices who sided with the government couldn't reach agreement on why they were siding with the government, one focusing on the hurried time-frame, another on the powers of the executive branch. I like for my students to see that there's even disagreement in agreement!

I'm proud of the teams that presented and the students that truly came prepared got more out of this activity than nearly any project I can think of. To the students who came unprepared, I gave an alternative project earning 50% of the points available. They were assigned a written project to be submitted online about the same topic. They were asked to prepare their work in the library (downstairs) during the class period the others presented in their two-minute arguments in 'Creative Controversy'.

As a teacher, you do your best to think of all your players, and their strengths and skills. I hope those that did the written assignment got at least half of the value of the lesson that those who prepared well received. I'm sorry they missed the experience, the huddling, the prompting, the new arguments rapidly jotted down while listening, the adrenaline and the pleasure of performing and competing in a safe place about issues that real justices on our nation's highest court couldn't find agreement on.