Racism and American Courts Unit
Monday
Tuesday
3
Wednesday
4
Thursday
5
Friday
6
7
TKMB and history of
institutional racism in the
South *Various media*
Vocabulary: “racism” and
legal jargon
Vocabulary of argument:
claim
Evaluation of the case of
Tom Robinson in light of
newly acquired vocab
*Movie clips*
Finishing up Whodunnit
activity began yesterday
(Hillocks)
Assessing case as argument
of judgment
What should have
happened/what should
change
Logical argument in defense
of claim *picture*
Components of fair
courtroom, justice
Begin defining racism
Continue to define racism:
looking at history
Criteria, examples, and
counter examples
Extended definition mini
writing assignment
Brief history of racism in the
American courts
Thurgood Marshall: Cal v
Bakke opinion *audio
clip*
Introduction of final
assignment; overview of
cases *film clips *
Grouping based on case
chosen, workshop with
definition and case chosen
Giraffe project with those
writing on the same court
case
Adding to our definition of
racism; changing nature of
definitions/criteria
Group work: does racism
exist in your chosen case?
Group work: Application of
working definition to your
case
Argument in action,
extended analysis
*movie clips*
Begin drafting claim –
importance of explicitness of
what racism is
Group work: develop/refine
argument out loud;
development of criteria
Partner work
/conferencing with
teacher; use of specific
case evidence
Rough draft due; peer edits
in class
Finish up peer edits in class;
poke holes in things –
partner arguing
Using clarifying peer edits to
create a new draft of your
paper
Final day to conference with
case group or workshop on
writing paper
FINAL DRAFT DUE!!
Week One
Weekly Essential Questions: What are the bases of argument writing? How can we apply those in a more informal setting (class
discussion)?
Weekly Goal: SWBAT comprehend what the vocabulary of argument writing consists of and begin to evaluate an argument of fact.
Weekly Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases;
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.9 Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of
American literature
DAY 1: MONDAY
DAY 2: TUESDAY
DAY 3: WEDNESDAY
DAY 4: THURSDAY
DAY 5: FRIDAY
EQ: What did life look like in
pre-Civil Rights American
South?
EQ: What were some of the
living conventions in the
South (ie, what were
common institutions and
practices that defined daily
life in the Pre-Civil Rights
American South)?
EQ: What is the vocabulary
used in establishing an
argument?
EQ: In Harper Lee’s To Kill
A Mockingbird, did facets of
Southern society,
specifically racial
discrimination, affect the
outcome of the case of Tom
Robinson?
EQ: How do we evaluate
evidence and warrants to
establish a claim?
Daily Goal: SWBAT
synthesize what they read
in TKMB with historical
occurrences and situations
in the pre-Civil Rights
American South
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.RL.11-12.9
Daily Goal: SWBAT
comprehend meaning of
basic legal jargon
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.L.11-12.4
Daily Goal: SWBAT
comprehend what the
terms claim, evidence,
warrant, backing,
qualifications, and rebuttals
mean.
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.L.11-12.4
Daily Goal: SWBAT apply
some of the terminology
learned yesterday to the
“Whodunnit” activity,
adapted from Hillocks.
Daily Goal: SWBAT
evaluate evidence to
establish and make a claim
(in the context of Tom
Robinson’s trial in TKMB)
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.RL.11-12.9
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.L.11-12.4
Monday: Students will have just finished a unit on Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, so as to transition neatly into this new unit, we are
going to examine what the society of the American South looked like before the Civil Rights Movement. What did life look like? What were
laws and practices in place? We will look at various newspaper headlines and pictures, while also integrating what the students are
learning in the United States History course concerning the Pre-Civil Rights era in the American South. Homework to be handed in next
class will be a 1-paragraph reflection of what students know about society in the Pre-Civil Rights South.
Tuesday: As a class, we will share some of the things that the students wrote in their reflections about prior knowledge about the
American South. From there I will move the discussions to the institutions that defined the South, such as segregation and
institutionalized racial discrimination. We will specifically look at Plessy v Ferguson (see Appendix) and the idea of separate but equal and
what that meant for Southern society. Based on an in-class reading of a portion of the actual court case, we will go over definitions of
certain legal jargon, which will be put up on our unit word wall chart. Activity will be students in small groups, looking at different
paragraphs of Plessy v Ferguson, searching for words they don’t understand that will need to be defined.
Wednesday: We will go over some of the words we defined yesterday, and move into defining words that are used in argument writing. I
will tell students the formal focus of this unit as an argument writing unit and briefly explain what their summative assessment will be
(essay), but let them know that we will go over that in greater detail later. I will point out that we argue every day, but we need to
establish some terminology that we will extensively be using throughout the unit.
Thursday: Referencing the courtroom scene in TKMB (show film clip), and in light of what we have gone over concerning
institutionalized racial prejudice and discrimination, students will begin to apply that knowledge to the case of Tom Robinson through the
Whodunnit activity, Hillocks Chapter One. Through this, students will be able to learn to find the evidence and state a claim. Expected that
this activity will take 2 class periods.
Friday: Continuation of Whodunnit activity moving from basic gathering of evidence to establishing warrants, and coming up with a
definite claim. As a class, we would come up with conclusions: for those who think that racial prejudice did exist, they would have a
chance to state why. Likewise, if there are any students who don’t think that racial discrimination played a part in Tom’s trial, they would
be able to state why, while putting into practice the terminiology we have been learning: they would be asserting a claim and using
evidence to support their claim. I would point out to them what exactly they had done at the end of the lesson. There would be no
weekend homework.
Appendix Items Used:
Plessy v Ferguson
Week Two
Essential Questions: How can we establish an argument of judgment by asserting a claim, providing evidence to support that claim,
warrants to explain how the evidence supports the claim, backing to support these warrants, and possible rebuttals and qualifications?
Weekly Goals: SWBAT will be able to apply argument vocabulary and formulate an argument of judgment.
Weekly Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1c Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of
the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s)
and counterclaims; CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says
explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain
DAY 6: MONDAY
DAY 7: TUESDAY
DAY 8: WEDNESDAY
DAY 9: THURSDAY
DAY 10: FRIDAY
EQ: Did racial
discrimination affect the
end ruling of the court in
Tom Robinson’s case? Why
or why not?
EQ: What do students this
the outcome of this court
case should have been?
Why or why not?
EQ: What makes up a
fair/just court?
EQ: Are there certain ideas
or beliefs that should or
should not exist in a
courtroom to make sure it
is just? How do criteria help
us understand a definition?
EQ: What is racism? Can we
come up with some criteria
for what makes something
or someone racist?
Daily Goal: SWBAT begin to
examine the example of
Tom Robinson as an
argument of judgment
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.RL.11-12.1
Daily Goal: SWBAT
articulate an alternative
outcome and provide
reasoning why that should
have happened (evidence
and warrants), coming up
with their own conclusion.
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.W.11-12.1c
Daily Goals: SWBAT
analyze an image for
implied meaning. SWBAT
formulate proto-criteria for
the components of a just
courtroom.
Standard: : CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.W.11-12.1c
Daily Goals: SWBAT
formulate criteria for a
situation (just courtroom)
and begin to formulate
criteria for “racism.”
Daily Goals: SWBAT
formulate criteria for a
definition of a term that
“will serve as part of the
backing for warrants used
in arguments” (Hillocks
104).
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Standard: CCSS.ELA-
Literacy.W.11-12.1c
Literacy.W.11-12.1c
Monday: After we reviewed what we went over last week, we would take a few moments to go over the vocabulary or argument, but
pushing students to also be able to provide an example of each word. We would then re-watch the courtroom scene from the Gregory Peck
TKMB movie. Following a modified version of the mascot debate in Hillocks, students would be then asked how they felt about the court
ruling, whether or not they agreed with it, why or why not and if it reminds them of anything else. They would split into groups and talk
about these questions further, while also asking how that decision was made, if there were any extenuating circumstances that played into
the verdict, and how they would go about the case differently if they were on the jury. We would finish this activity tomorrow as a whole
class, but students would write up a one-paragraph explanation of what they think should have happened to be handed in tomorrow at
the beginning of class.
Tuesday: Students would get back in their small groups from yesterday and go over what they had discussed. We would then come
together as a whole class. As a class, we would come back together and then go over what the class thinks should have happened and why,
as I write on the board: what they think should have happened = claim. Why = evidence, how the “whys” they came up with support what
they think should have happened = “warrant” and what backs up the newly made warrants = “backing.” This would again allow students
to see how the thinking they are already doing fits into argument writing.
Wednesday: I would display the image found in the Appendix of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch representing Tom Robinson in court and
ask students what they see. What do they notice? What stands out to them? Then I would push them further: where are they? What is the
first word you think of when you hear the word “courtroom”? What other words do we commonly associate with “court?” I would guide
the conversation towards “justice” and words like that. Then I would ask students what they think makes up a good and fair and just
courtroom. Are there physical elements? Let’s go further: what are the other components of a courtroom that must exist to make it just?
They would get back into their small groups from yesterday and go over what they think needs to be present in a courtroom for it to be
considered “just.” As a group, they must come up with 5 criteria of what makes a just courtroom. At the end of the period, we would
regroup and go over these again, with me writing some on the board, which I would later copy down and put on a bulletin board. At the
end of the class, I would leave students with a parting question that I would ask them to answer in a short paragraph for homework: are
there certain ideas or concepts that should or should not be present in a courtroom for it to be just? Why or why not? Back your claim
with at least 3 pieces of evidence and explain the warrants that back your evidence.
Thursday: Students would get back into their small groups and share what ideas they think should or should not be present in a
courtroom and their reasons why. As we come back together as a large group, ask if any of the students came up with the idea that
“prejudice” should not exist in a fair courtroom. If yes, allow the student(s) to explain why. Ask if they were thinking a specific kind of
prejudice, and guide the conversation to racism, connecting back to the idea of racial prejudice that we have discussed at what the
students noticed yesterday about Tom being the only Black man in the picture. Ask students what they think racism is. Write down some
ideas on the board. Remind them of the discussion last Thursday: did racial discrimination (racism) exist in Tom Robinson’s case? Why?
Tell students that it is not simply enough to say yes or no, but we need to apply our terminology of argument to racism. What is racism?
Have them reflect silently, writing down ideas in any form of what they think racism is. This will be collected at the end of the period.
Friday: Remind students of the definition of racism as we have begun to decide it. Ask as a class: what is racism? What did students write?
How can we decide what racism is? Tell students that in the United States, a “major function of the appellate courts, and the Supreme
Court in particular, has been to modify the definitions of terms used in the backing of warrants (remind what warrants are), especially by
clarifying and adding criteria” (Hillocks 105). Tell students that definitions are a huge part of the backing of warrants, which make up the
evidence that support our claim and thus are hugely important. Have the students work with a partner to see if they can come up with a
more precise definition of racism, and use the computers in the room to Google an image of racism. They will present their definition and
picture to the class at the end of the period.
Appendix Items Used:
Image of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch defending Tom Robinson