Introduction. . . Public Anthropology’s
Community Action Website Project seeks to provide students with key skills
they will need to be successful in their future careers: objectivity, critical
thinking and effective communication. The Project encourages (a)
critical thinking regarding an ethical issue in anthropology as well as
what constitutes objective facts, (2) a sharing of ideas among students
from different universities,and (3) improved writing skills.
Before we begin, it is critical you understand what is meant by OBJECTIVITY:
There are four steps to this skill development process:
Let's
begin. . . _______________________________________________________________________________________________
1.When should you get involved in helping others? In answering this question in respect to the problem below, here are some points to ponder: When
public institutions promise to right a wrong – a wrong they acknowledge – and
then fail to do so, should students,such as yourself, encourage these public
institutions to keep their word? Or should you leave the matter to others
who are directly affected by the problem? It is important to consider how
and when you choose to PARTICIPATE in morally and professionally influencing
the world around you. If students are being encouraged in anthropology
to have a more global outlook, if global citizenship is an ideal frequently
stressed on university campuses, does that personally affect you and
the concrete actions you take in your everyday life? When? How?
2.Based on the enclosed documentation and The Center for a Public Anthropology's five years of experience evaluating data related to this issue, the Center would assert the points highlighted below are objective facts. Please look at the enclosed documentation, surf the internet (Googling, for example, "Yanomami blood"), and explore any additional material that you perceive as relevant. Your task is to decide whether the Center's claim is credible and correct. Based on your assessment of whether the following points appear to be objective facts – as the Center claims them to be – what action do you believe should (or should not) be taken? The
assignment . . . AS PART OF DEVELOPING THE PROFESSIONAL CRITICAL THINKING AND COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS YOU WILL NEED IN A FUTURE CAREER, YOU HAVE TO PRACTICE APPLYING THEM TO REAL WORLD SITUATIONS. HOW WOULD YOU APPLY THOSE SKILLS TO THE FOLLOWING REAL LIFE SITUATION? YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, TO SEND YOUR OP-ED (OPINION) PIECE TO A KEY DECISION-MAKER INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM. IN DECIDING WHAT STAND YOU WISH TO TAKE, YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POINTS (DRAWN FROM RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER FOR A PUBLIC ANTHROPOLOGY)? 1: The
Yanomami have played a prominent role in the publicizing of anthropology
to college students and, through them, to the broader public. Literally
millions of students have been introduced to the Yanomami through introductory
courses
in anthropology over the past 40 years. But aside from the gifts presented
to the Yanomami by various anthropologists during their fieldwork, the
Yanomami have received relatively little compensation while anthropologists,
building
on the group’s renown, have built prominent careers and gained financially. [Supporting
Documentation]
2: In the late 1960s, prominent American researchers collected blood samples from the Yanomami Indians for their research. In return for the blood samples, the Yanomami were given a number of valued items – such as machetes and pots. The Yanomami were promised that the blood samples would be used to gather information that would prove helpful in fighting the diseases ravaging them. [Supporting Documentation]
5: The reason the Yanomami want the return of these blood samples relates to Yanomami religious beliefs. Yanomami believe that all parts of a deceased Yanomami must be deposed of so the dead can leave this world in peace rather than be forced to remain here on earth. The fact that dead Yanomami may become angry at not being able to leave this world can have serious repercussions for the living.The dead may bring harm to living Yanomami. [Supporting Documentation] 6: The Attorney General of the Brazilian State of Roraima – where most of the Brazilian Yanomami live – formally requested both Pennsylvania State University and the National Cancer Institute to return the blood samples in their possession. In2006, both agreed in writing to do so. [Supporting Documentation] 7: Despite the appearance of good intentions, it is now 2010 and the samples have not been returned. [Supporting Documentation] WHY HAVE THE BLOOD SAMPLES NOT BEEN RETURNED? The full answer remains unclear. Two different individuals have offered two different answers. Neither suggested these answers when their institutions first agreed to return the blood samples. They were suggested subsequently after agreement had been reached on returning the blood samples as reasons for extending the delay in returning them. 1. Answer espoused by Prof. Weiss at Pennsylvania State University: It is dangerous to send the blood samples back to the Yanomami. The samples may contain disease which, when opened, could transmit disease to living Yanomami. Points Students Might Consider in Respect to This Answer:
Points Students Might Consider in Respect to This Answer:
Possibilities
to ponder in asserting a position regarding your Op-Ed (or opinion)
paper . . . _______________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) TheYanomami are suffering from a number of serious ills involving life-threatening illnesses as well as the illegal invasion of their territory by gold miners. The Hutukara - Associação Yanomami (the Yanomami organization, or NGO, the Yanomami have created to represent their interests) is not asking the Community Action Website’s help in addressing these problems since these are not problems the Community Action Project can especially help with. The Hutukara - Associação Yanomami is asking the help of Canadian and American undergraduate students to speak out about this problem and thereby assist with the one thing North American students can do – PARTICIPATE in building public pressure for the return of their deceased relatives’ blood. (2) Introductory anthropology students have already played an instrumental role in getting Pennsylvania State University to agree to return the blood. Letters from the Brazilian Attorney General in Roraima,Brazil, who legally represents the Yanomami, were repeatedly ignored by American institutions when the request was first made for the return of the Yanomami blood. The step that broke the “logjam” so to speak at Pennsylvania State University was when students wrote directly to the President of Pennsylvania State University. (3) Both the National Cancer Institute and Pennsylvania State University have promised, in writing, to return the blood samples. But they have created various delays -- appearing to be doing "the right thing" while avoiding actually returning the blood.The Yanomami lack the communicative skills in English students possess. They also cannot bring pressure to bear on these institutions because they live in the Amazon thousands of miles away. But students can bring such pressure. Through the skills they are practicing in the Community Action Website Project, they can write intelligent and compelling Op-Ed pieces and have them published in local,state and national newspapers or on the internet. Since the current generation of students is often familiar with various forms of social media, they can leverage their media skills to serve the common good. Here is a chance to build a record of service while, at the same time, developing a competitive edge in important career skills.
(1) Itis unreasonable to request North American undergraduate students to assist in facilitating the return of the blood samples when it is really the responsibility of the Yanomami themselves to resolve the situation. (2) Students know relatively little about this problem. It would take weeks to learn enough to be able to make a sensible decision as to whether to get involved or not. Given the various demands on a student, most do not have the time to conduct a thorough investigation of the issue. (3) This is a problem that does not directly affect students has they progress toward their chosen careers.They have acted honorably-- they have not caused any harm to the Yanomami. Asking students to go beyond the anthropological standard of "doing no harm" to actually helping others, particularly when it does not personally involve them, is asking too much.
Students
are not required to choose between the two options above -- of advocating
or not advocating for the Yanomami. They can affirm another position --
besides these two -- that combines elements of both or approaches the problem
in
a different
manner. Students are free to develop their own position in their
own creative way as long as they address the topic of the blood samples
and participate
in Public Anthropology’s professional skill building and learning
PROCESS. (They cannot wander off on to another topic and discuss
that. They must stick with this topic.) Previewing
the grading standards that will be used to evaluate your Op-Ed
piece . . . _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Point: Does the opinion piece have a point that is clearly expressed? The Point may be a recommendation for action or it may be to alert readers to a problem. The author should make a single point well. You, as the reader, should be able to explain the author's message in a sentence or two. 6-7: The opinion piece has an original, well-argued point. The piece draws the reader into looking at the topic in a new way or with new insight.The reader can readily summarize what the author is saying and why. 4-5: The opinion piece makes a point that appears original. But the supporting data appear a bit muddled. Readers are left with questions: Why did the author take this position? Why take this position rather than an alternative one? 2-3: The piece leaves readers confused as to what point the author is trying to make. The reader cannot readily summarize the author's key point or the data supporting the position seem not to really support it. 1: Thepaper lacks an identifiable point. Readers are left confused as to what point the author is making and why. Persuasive: Does the piece persuade the reader? A good piece argues effectively for a particular point. Even though the reader may not ultimately agree with the author, the reader comes away from the piece willing to seriously consider the author's perspective. 6-7: A reader comes away from reading the piece feeling the author has effectively argued for a certain point. The author uses concrete examples that resonate with readers. 4-5: The opinion piece highlights an important topic. But it does not really convince readers as to the value of the author's position. 2-3: The opinion piece seems mostly a personal venting. The author is not reaching out to readers or trying to connect with them in a meaningful way. 1: The piece is unconvincing. An unbiased reader, reading this piece, would not find the piece very persuasive. Hook and Structure: Does the opinion piece engage the reader right at the beginning? Is there evidence of thoughtful organization? Does the author summarize the main point at the end? 6-7: The main point is effectively stated in the first few sentences. These first few sentences capture the reader's attention and draw the reader into reading further. The author effectively summarizes the piece's argument in a strong final paragraph. 4-5: Readers are not immediately draw into the argument. But they are not put off by it either. They find the piece reasonable but a little slow moving. It does not keep your attention. The final paragraph does not offer a powerful restatement of the author's position. 2-3: The piece makes a basic point. But it does not catch your attention. It does not draw you in at the beginning nor does it summarize its message at the end. 1: The author never draws the reader into the opinion piece. It is not clear what the author is saying nor why it is important. Writingand Clarity: Is the piece readily understandable by non-academic readers? General readers should find the piece easy and interesting to read. There should be few grammatical and spelling errors. 6-7: The writing is clear. The author's own voice and perspective come through in a convincing way. You can identify with the author and the position she or he takes. There are no grammatical mistakes that distract from the author's argument. 4-5: The writing is reasonable. The sentences and paragraphs are a bit too long or the passive voice is emphasized. There is a bit too much jargon. 2-3: The author tends to go on too long. It is not really clear what point she or he is making. The author has long sentences and paragraphs. 1: A reader is left confused as to what point the author is trying to make. Tone: Is the opinion piece polite and respectful? The focus in on persuading the reader rather than voicing indignation or condemnation. 6-7: The opinion piece is polite and respectful in tone. Rather than dismissing the other side, it acknowledges its value while disagreeing with it. It comes across as written by a thoughtful professional versed in the subject being discussed. 4-5: There is generally a polite tone. But the author does not acknowledge that reasonable people might disagree regarding the point being made. The author asserts there is one reasonable position and she or he is presenting it. 2-3: The piece comes across as quite opinionated. It appears the author is "venting" about something that bothers her or him. 1: The piece is similar to a political "attack" ad. The author is pouring at rage with little concern for who is reading the piece. [Source: a combination of Karl Schmid’s (York University) “Instructions for Wring Op-Ed Pieces" and Duke University’s “Op-EdA ritcles: How to Write and Place Them" (http://news.duke.edu/duke_community/oped.html)] |