Moral question

[Tristan Lall]

The assigned question is perfectly valid, and as others have pointed out, interesting. Given other circumstances, it would be worthy of serious consideration.

But the requirements described are asinine. He's basically picked out many of the standard techniques for an essay, and said 'use them all to excess'. The insistence upon 15 rhetorical devices, two illustrations and a literary excerpt is ample evidence of this. Those things are not to be used wantonly to add bulk to a piece—they're there to emphasize your central ideas, as necessary. To require them in that quantity likely implies malice, for I have a hard time believing that an English teacher doesn't know that they're more likely to pollute the piece than to add meaning to it. Can you imagine if I decided to fill this post with similies and characterization, just because someone thought 15 was a nice number? It would likely be unreadable trash. Besides, writers like Asimov (with something like 450 published books to his name...) seemed to make do just fine with an unembellished style; why pretend that rhetorical devices are the only way to describe an argument?

And the signatures of two community members? That's outrageous. Your opinions should not be subject to the ratification of two random individuals. He should be promoting an environment where you are free to express yourself, not forced to pander to their opinion of literary worthiness—especially not after you've taken the time to write the piece. (And while it makes sense to target your piece to the community which it concerns, that requirement should be easy for a teacher to evaluate; why involve others with such a simple task?) And on top of that, hunting down signatures is likely to be a waste of time.

The statement that the assignment will be "graded on completeness, accuracy, and evidence of a robust, detailed, methodical, comprehensive, diligent, mature approach that honors the spirit of this assignment" necessitates that you ask what the spirit of the assignment is. Indeed, when the assignment was created spontaneously, assigned preferentially, and so transparently describes his apparent emotion toward the students' actions, it's hard to imagine that the spirit of the assignment has anything to do with the qualities detailed in that phrase. Isn't it a contradiction in terms to write of, and indeed demand maturity, and yet create an assignment in an episode of petulance?

Best of all, he writes that "[f]ailure to incorporate any one of the project requirements listed above will earn an automatic zero." That's the most damning evidence that this isn't about pedagogy at all. The marks are supposed to say something about the quality of the work. If he's going to allocate a large quantity of marks to a project, then that's a pretty compelling reason to distribute marks for that which is of good quality, and to withhold them for that which is of poor quality. Making the marking scheme binary means that the student doesn't get the feedback that the teacher owes them, concerning the quality of their work. How is the student supposed to improve the quality of their writing if they don't know how badly they screwed up?

In the grand scheme of things, this is the sort of test that might be used to build loyalty, by negative reinforcement of any behaviour which is considered out of line. In some situations, like military units, unwavering compliance is considered a virtue. In other instances, however, the ability to prioritize tasks and reject or defer the least critical ones is more valuable—medical triage, for example. I don't think that it's appropriate to paint those who didn't hand the original assignment in as having betrayed him, because it's not at all clear that they were acting out of spite.

Sure, life isn't fair. But that's not an excuse for being a nuissance. If the requirements and consequences of the initial essay were spelled out in advance, I don't think there would be any complaints. The problem exists because he moved the goalposts*, and in so doing, is betraying the students in the same manner in which he believes that they betrayed him. What sort of a lesson is that? If you're feeling down, bring others down with you?

One wonders why he doesn't simply have this discussion in class, out in the open, rather than screw around with the marking scheme.

You're right to discuss this with him, and the other students. You're also right to address the matter to his department head or administrator. Unfortunately, someone from the life-isn't-fair department may well want to have a word with you—in essence, you could sabotage your standing in other areas by bringing a complaint. It's the classic problem with whistleblowing; you risk people thinking less of you by doing it. With that in mind, I've got to agree with the advice that Don gave below; talk to someone who is required to keep the matter confidential, such as a guidance counsellor. They'll (hopefully) be able to advise you on what is allowed by the school, and will (hopefully) shield you from any personal consequences arising from your criticism.

One thing that might be interesting to consider is that despite his apparent poor conduct, the teacher seemed to have good intentions when creating the original assignment. In light of that, it seems to me that whatever malice was applied to the creation of the second assignment was born out of an emotional reaction, rather than a calculated desire to wreak havoc. I suppose it's as good example as any why you most often can't simply pick sides and declare one to be good and the other to be evil.

*See, I can use rhetorical devices too!