Day 1

Introduce Students to Academic Controversy

1. Have students brainstorm a list of the kinds of communication and collaboration skills necessary for this type of project – e.g. active and respectful listening, “I” messages, no shouting (see the Tips section). Ask the class to identify characteristics of healthy communication and collaboration, and perhaps use a word such as “communicate” as a guide in the brainstorming (E.g. C – collaborate, O – one-on-one, M – mindful, etc.). Keep track of the students’ responses on chart paper and display in the classroom for the remainder of the lesson. Hand out Student Handouts A and B, ask the class to read them silently, and then ask a couple of students to identify what was listed in the handouts that the class hadn’t come up with yet in the brainstorming activity.

2. Ask students to describe a typical debate. How is it structured? What is the end goal? Discuss with students the difference between the Academic Controversy model, with an emphasis on a “win-win” resolution, and the traditional debate model, which results in one side winning and the other side losing. Emphasize that the desired outcome of this lesson is the synthesis of the best reasoning from both positions, and the creation of a new position that all involved can articulate, defend and live with.

3. Distribute Student Handouts 1 and 2, the Academic Controversy Steps and Checklist and the Rules for Academic Controversy. Allow a few minutes for students to read the handout, encouraging them to underline main ideas. Then call on two-three students to summarize the main ideas represented in these handouts. For example, in Step 3, “Engage in Open Discussion,” of Handout 1, students might identify “continuing to advocate for their positions and refute the evidence and the reasoning of the other side” as a main idea. In Student Handout 2, the Rules, students might underline the phrase “even if I don’t agree” under rule number 4, to emphasize that the idea of listening to other people’s ideas is not contingent on agreeing with them. Have another student write the main ideas the class comes up with on chart paper and display in the classroom for the remainder of the lesson.

4. Ask the students the following questions: “Why are we using this process? How can this benefit us? What purpose is there to switching sides? Why is it important to be able to create a new position?” This will help students think about the value of the process. For example, a student might explain the importance of switching sides as an opportunity to “stand in someone else’s shoes.” Another student might highlight the fact that the creation of a new position could resolve the conflict that exists between the two sides. Ask a student to write the responses on chart paper to display in the classroom.

Warm-Up Activity: “Trying on” Academic Controversy (approx. 25 min)

1. Select a student to model the Academic Controversy process with you. Select another student to time the controversy and a third student to track the strategies the class identifies after each step. Explain that after each step in the structured controversy (draw their attention to Student Handout 1), you’re going to stop and ask the class what they noticed. What strategies or approaches worked best in presenting each position? What strategies or approaches worked best for the reversal of perspectives? And what strategies or approaches worked best for the synthesis of the strongest elements from both perspectives? (Have these questions written out on chart paper beforehand and post them during this exercise). A student will keep track of the answers on chart paper.

Assign the student you are modeling with the following position: Students should be able to transfer out of classes that are too early for them to make on time. Assign yourself the following position: Students should not be able to transfer out of classes that are too early for them to make on time.

Remind the class that you are only modeling how to engage in a structured Academic Controversy, and you are not going to be including the first step (creating the best case for a position). Explain that you are also spending less time on each section than they will when they practice Academic Controversy next or when they do the actual International Court Academic Controversy in the next few days.

Have the timer give you each two minutes to present your positions. Then pause and ask the class what strategies or approaches worked best in the presentations of each position – what worked best in persuading them one way or another? Students will brainstorm and have the note-taker write the responses on the chart paper.

Have the timer give you two minutes to engage in open discussion. At this point, you and your partner continue to support your positions; you also have the opportunity to respectfully refute your opponent’s points and ask for clarification. Then you will reverse positions. Remind students that the task is not to find the loopholes in their opponents’ arguments, but rather to identify and argue those points that are the strongest and most persuasive as if they were their own.

Have the timer give you each two minutes to argue for the opposite position. Then pause and ask the class what strategies or approaches worked best for the reversal of perspectives – what are good ways to argue the other person’s position, especially when you were refuting that position just moments ago? Students will brainstorm and have the note-taker write the responses on the chart paper.

Have the timer give you and your partner three minutes to synthesize. Remind the class that at this point, you and your partner need to take the most persuasive arguments from both sides and create a new position. Ask the note-taker to write down the key decisions or points that both sides agree on in order to come to consensus. Then pause and ask the class what strategies or approaches worked best for the synthesis of the strongest elements from both perspectives – what are good ways to resolve this conflict and create a new position that both sides can live with? Students will brainstorm and have the note-taker write the responses on the chart paper.

At this point the notes from the class’ reflections on each step of the Academic Controversy will be displayed in front of the class. Ask the students the same questions you asked them earlier. This time their answers will be informed by the modeling exercise. “Why are we using this process? How can this benefit us? What purpose is there to switching sides? Why is it important to be able to create a new position?”

2. Hand out copies of the rest of the Student Handouts. You will need to provide several copies of Handouts 5, 6, and 7 to each student because their note-taking will require more than one sheet. Review Student Handout 1, the Academic Controversy Checklist, which will help students stay organized as they proceed. Student Handout 3, the Rubric for Assessing Performance in Academic Controversy, will help students understand how they will be evaluated throughout the process and should make explicit what is considered superior, good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory effort and performance. Student Handout 4, the Rubric for Assessing Performance In Academic Controversy: Written Report and Oral Presentation, will help students understand how they will be evaluated on their written report and oral presentation (if applicable) and should make explicit what is expected of them. Student Handout 5, the Research Note-Taking Form, should be used by students for note-taking and comments during their research position development. Student Handout 6, the Presenting Positions: Note-Taking Form, should be used by students for taking notes on the key points and their comments while listening to the opposite side’s position. Student Handout 7, the Reaching Consensus: Synthesis/Resolution Form, should be used by groups of students to identify and articulate all the key elements of their new position, one that melds together the best elements of both Position A and B.

Explain to students that they will be responsible for using these handouts at each step throughout the lesson, and that they will need to hand Student Handouts 5, 6, and 7 in with their joint report at the end of the lesson for credit. Tell them they will get some practice using them during practice exercise they are about to do.

3. Organize the class into pairs by having the class count off in twos. Each student finds a partner – every 1 should partner with a 2.

Assign all the “Ones” the following position: Students should be allowed to have cell phones in school.

Assign all the “Twos” the following position: Students should not be allowed to have cell phones in school.

4. Remind students that they need to employ active listening for this activity, which means that they cannot talk or ask questions while the other person is speaking, and they should take notes on what the other person says. Explain to them that each person in Group 1 will have two minutes to present his/her position, while those in Group 2 take notes using Student Handout 6. Then those in Group 2 will get two minutes to present their position, while those in Group 1 take notes using Student Handout 6. Tell the class that you will time these presentations, and that you will shout “Time” when two minutes are up.

5. When both sides have presented their positions, give the partners three minutes to engage in open discussion. Remind students that at this point they should continue to advocate for their positions, while trying to refute the reasoning of the other side.

6. Those in Group 1 and those in Group 2 now reverse perspectives, adopting the view they were just trying to refute. Students in each group will have two minutes to present the best case for what was the opposing perspective. Remind students that this is the most difficult step in Academic Controversy, and that they really need to work at stepping out of their own shoes and stepping into the shoes of their partners, arguing for the reverse perspective.

7. Give students five minutes to work with their partner to synthesize their two perspectives, drawing on the best reasoning from both positions and melding them into a new position. Both students in the pair are responsible for tracking this conversation and the key elements of their new position using Student Handout 7. Students turn these in.

8. Evaluate students for this first day’s work based on their participation in this exercise, and based on Student Handouts 5, 6, and 7 that they hand in. This is a good opportunity for informal assessment to learn whether students may need some additional help.

Day 2-3

Warm-Up and Introduction to Content

1. Ask students to respond to the following question, and list their responses on the board: What is an historical example of an international criminal court of law that followed World War II? If students do not initially think of the Nuremberg Trials, you could provide them with a few prompts that might help them come up with some examples. For example, you might ask:

• How were the Nazis held accountable for the crimes against humanity they committed during WWII?
• What were the pros and cons of using an international court to prosecute the Nazis versus some other means of bringing them to justice?

Allow some time for discussion and for students to reflect on this example.

2. Introduce the case study – Slobodan Milosevic’s nationalistic campaign of terror against non-Serbs across Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia and the question of whether the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was the most appropriate means of bringing Milosevic to justice. Ask a student to point out Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia on a map in the front of the classroom, and to identify 3-4 of their neighboring countries.

3. Hand out the following article from the Resource list: “A Bitter Struggle in a Land of Strife,” By Jane Perlez. The New York Times. February 12, 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/
featured_articles/19990212friday.html
This is a good introductory article for the case study. It is short and relatively simple. It introduces students to new terms and concepts; provides a brief overview of the history of Serbian nationalism through 1999; and gives a sense of the chronology of the Bosnian War and of the Kosovo conflict. Remind students to bear in mind that this article was written before the war in Kosovo was over, so the discussion of the peace conference at the end of the article is incongruent with the realities of the later massacres of non-Serbs and of the NATO air strikes that followed the following month. Ask students to read it as a way of introducing the topic, and then ask them to briefly summarize the case in two-three sentences. Then call on one or two students to read their summaries out loud.

4. Identify the controversy that the class will be engaging in for the next few days: “International Courts of Law: Should they be used for holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians?”

• Position A: International courts of law should be used for holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians.
• Position B: International courts of law should not be used for holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians.

Form Groups and Research Positions

1. Divide the class into groups of four. Explain that these will be the groups that students will remain in throughout the rest of the lesson. Students’ performance will be evaluated based on individual effort, participation, and contribution to the group. Assign a pair from each group to each position.

Remind students that each team will be thoroughly researching their position in order to create the best case for their position. After they have become knowledgeable about their position, they will need to organize and frame logical, compelling and well-reasoned arguments to use in the structured controversy.

2. Ask students to brainstorm a list of questions they will need to answer in order to develop the strongest argument for their particular position. Track these on chart paper. Then, if any questions have been missed, the teacher can provide the following list to further focus students in their research:

• What do the following terms mean? Genocide, refugees, nationalism, ethnic groups/ ethnic minority/ ethnic majority, massacre, ethnic cleansing, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, United Nations, International Criminal Court, human rights, crimes against humanity.
• What was the impact of Miloseviç’s regime on the lives of people in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia?
• What were Miloseviç’s reasons or rationalizations for his actions?
• What is the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia? What purpose does it serve? Is it effective in the case of Miloseviç?
• What are the pros and the cons of using international courts? What are the pros and cons of using national or local courts?
• What other means of bringing individuals or groups to justice are there?
• What might a future look like in which international courts of law are utilized for cases where the human rights of great numbers of civilians were violated?

3. Hand out the Resource Packets (see Resources/Materials section). Briefly introduce the resources pieces included.

4. Students will need substantial quiet time to read individually, using Student Handout 5 as a guide and to take notes, before coming joining their partners to develop their case. You may want to structure a reading and then joint-work time, or you may want to leave the structuring of their time up to the students in each pair.

5. Assign the following homework assignment the night before the structured controversy takes place: Ask students to review the notes they took while conducting their research, and to identify those elements that might be most persuasive in making a case for their position. They should highlight or “star” those sections of their notes that are most compelling and come ready to share them with their partners the next day.

Day 4-5

Warm-Up and Re-group

1. Ask one or two students to briefly describe in their own words why this issue is a controversy. What are the opposing viewpoints regarding whether or not international courts of law should be used to bring individuals or groups to justice for vast violations of human rights?

2. Have students re-group with their partners. Give the pairs 10-15 minutes to share the sections they highlighted for homework, and to strategize about how to make the strongest, most logical case for their position.

Present the best case for their positions

1. Remind students about the rules for Academic Controversy (refer them to Student Handout 2). Perhaps have a student read them aloud or paraphrase them.

2. Explain to students that you will be timing each pair’s presentation, and that the pair that is not presenting should be actively listening and taking notes using Student Handout 6. The listening pair should also be analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

3. Allow each pair four-eight minutes, depending on your time budget, to present the best case possible. It is often helpful to alert students when there are two minutes left.

Engage in open discussion

1. Allow five minutes for open conversation between the two pairs.

2. At this point, each pair continues to support their position and students have the opportunity to refute their opponent’s points and to strengthen their own. This is a time for discussion, and also provides time for individuals to ask clarifying questions of the other pair.

Reverse perspectives

1. Pairs now switch sides, adopting and arguing the point of view they earlier tried to refute. This is the most difficult step for students. It is hard to suddenly switch hats and to now have to powerfully and persuasively argue your opponent’s position. It might be helpful to remind students here about the ultimate goal and expected outcome of Academic Controversy: a new position that both pairs can live with, a real win-win situation that leaves no one the loser.

2. Allow each pair four-five minutes to prepare their new position, encouraging them to carefully review the notes they took during their opponents’ presentation. Remind students that the task here is not to find the loopholes in their opponents’ positions, but rather to identify and argue those points that are the strongest and most persuasive as if they were their own.

3. Allow each pair three-four minutes to represent the best reasoning of the opposite perspective.

Day 5-6

Re-Group and Synthesize

1. Restate what the two positions have been for this Academic Controversy:

• Position A: International courts of law should be used for holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians.
• Position B: International courts of law should not be used for holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians.

Ask a representative from the Position A pair to summarize for the other three people in their group what the three-five most compelling, well-reasoned arguments they have made are. Ask a representative from the Position B pair to do the same thing.

2. Now opposing pairs need to come together to jointly select and agree on the best reasoning from both Position A and Position B. Ask the pair supporting Position B whether the arguments just presented by the pair supporting position A are the most compelling and well-reasoned. Ask the same of the Position A pair. What other key points were made that are missing from the list? Are any arguments not well reasoned (with supporting evidence) and persuasive?

3. Have each group of four use Student Handout 7 to identify and articulate all the key elements of their new position, one that incorporates the best elements of both Position A and B. Refer students to the goal of the exercise as explained on Handout 7: a solution that represents a synthesis of the reasoning behind both positions. Walk through how to use Handout 7, highlighting where students note the key points from both arguments and where they record their ideas for solutions.

The new position is more than just a compromise. It should represent new thinking and possibilities, and it should not force either side to “give up” too much. The new position may be something that might not be entirely possible without new international efforts, laws, or sensitivities. This is a chance for students to “think outside the box” – to imagine brand new ways of resolving the given conflict.

For this particular Academic Controversy, new positions might include:

• Every nation must recognize and respected the authority of international courts of law if they are to be used effectively in holding individuals and groups accountable for large-scale atrocities and human rights violations committed against civilians.
• If each nation has a more effective and fair means of bringing perpetrators of grand-scale human rights violations to justice, then international courts of law should not be used.

Creating a Joint Report

1. Each group of four will create a report that briefly describes the presentation and main arguments of the two positions; identifies and explores the key elements of and rationale for the new position; and provides a creative and persuasive case for the new position.

2. Refer students to Student Handout 4, Rubric for Assessing Performance In Academic Controversy: Written Report. Ask students to read through the rubric. Then, walk the class through one or two of the columns of the rubric, highlighting the differences between scores (1-4 points) and emphasizing the criteria you will consider when you evaluate their work. Allow time for students to ask any questions they may have regarding the rubric. Through this exercise, students should gain a clear sense of what is expected of them as they embark on the preparation of the joint report. This is also a good time for the teacher to discuss deadlines (e.g. outline of report due Monday, bibliography of resources due Tuesday, etc.).

3. For the final joint report, each group of four will prepare a written report that includes a thesis statement that clearly advocates for a new position, a rationale for that new position, and a conclusion that includes next steps for the United States and the international community to take. Students might divvy up writing responsibilities after brainstorming together, or the group might outline the paper together and then divide up writing responsibilities among individuals or pairs.

4. Then, if time permits, each group can choose one of the following creative options as an additional joint-product to hand in.

• An illustrated timeline of the events in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia.
• A mural or collage (including text and visuals) chronicling the experiences of civilians who were victimized by the Miloseviç regime.
• The enactment of a scene (either performed live in the classroom or videotaped) – either fictional or an historical re-enactment.
• The development of a fictional personal narrative (e.g. the story of a Bosnian Muslim refugee fleeing Serbian repression).
• The development of a resolution to the United Nations regarding steps the international community should take to ensure the formation and implementation of an international criminal court to effectively respond to grand-scale human rights violations

Extension Activities
The ideas below offer opportunities to extend students’ understanding of the use of international courts or tribunals to bring individuals or groups to justice for the gross violation of human rights.

Consider these case studies: the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission; the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazis (http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/nuremberg/); the Tokyo Tribunal/ Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery (http://www.iccwomen.org/); the U.S. decision to invade Afghanistan in order to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

Using the following resource — http://www.iccnow.org/ – The Country-by-Country International Criminal Court Ratification Status Report — ask students to consider why the United States might be reluctant to ratify and implement the International Criminal Court. Have students reflect on the case of the attacks of September 11, and ask them to consider what options the U.S. had for a response. If an International Criminal Court did exist, what would that have meant in terms of a response to the terrorist attacks?