CCS 400 Junior Seminar: Christian Character & Global Citizenship
Spring, 2006
MW 9:00-10:15 Loyola 22
Dr. Thomas B. Leininger Tel (303) 964-5082 E-mail tleining@regis.edu
Office Loyola 32 Hrs: MW 10:15-12:15*; W 1:20-2:20 *Meet in Cafeteria MW 11:30-12:15
_________________________________________________________________________________
REQUIRED TEXTS
Documents and Links Posted on Website: http://academic.regis.edu/tleining/
Beaudoin, Tom. Consuming Faith: Integrating Who We Are with What We Buy. Lanham, MD: Sheed &
Ward, 2003. (Available at Regis Bookstore.)
Course Reader (abbreviated as “CR”; available by calling 303-455-3655)
_________________________________________________________________________________
READINGS & DISCUSSION SCHEDULE
1. W Jan 18 Globalization & Christian Consumption Film: Merchants of Cool (Frontline 2001, 60m)
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. M Jan 23 Beaudoin, Preface & ch. 1; DUE: Reading Questions (“RQs”) for Consuming Faith;
Prepare Viewing Questions (“VQs”) for Merchants of Cool (to be discussed in class and
not turned in) and read 5th Grade Consumer Image of God See Course Website
3. W Jan 25 Beaudoin, ch. 2 & p. 56 (ch. 3 is optional); DUE: RQs ch. 2
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. M Jan 30 Beaudoin, ch. 4; DUE: RQs ch. 4; Bring printout of Viewing Qs for No Logo on Course
Website; Film: No Logo (MEF 2003, 42-51m)
5. W Feb 1
Beaudoin, ch. 5; DUE: RQs ch. 5; Film: Global Village or Global Pillage? (J. Brecher,
1999, 27m); Bring printout of VQs for Global Village or Global Pillage?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. M Feb 6
Guest Speaker: Fr. Simon Harak, S.J.; Beaudoin, “Iraq War and Imperial Psychology”
[available at DML in the periodical America 192:2 (January 17-24, 2005): pages 14-16];
Read any other source on the Iraq War (could be an opinion piece, an analysis of the war,
factual information about the war, etc.). DUE: For each reading above (1 and 2): Thesis:
1 sentence—main point/upshot of facts researched; Support: 2 reasons given by author to
support thesis; Critical Analysis (of the two readings): “How would the two authors
respond to each other and what is your analysis of them?”
 Bring questions about the Iraq War for Fr. Simon Harak to class
7. W
Feb 8
Beaudoin, ch. 6; DUE: RQs ch. 6; Discussion of Paper 1 assignment. CR, 60-61
Case Discussion 1: Economic Ethics a. Bao Thao b. Erika Pendergraff
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. M Feb 13 Why Casuistry? Leininger, “The Essentials of Casuistry”; CR, 20
Methodology: http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html; CR, 21-22
Sample Case: http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cecase.html; CR, 23-24
The Case of Dax Cowart: http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/ ceintro.html; CR, 25
Leininger, “Writing Guidelines” (available on course website); CR, 1-5
DUE: Summary/highlights of your analysis of how well a sample paper meets Parts I-III
of the Writing Guidelines. Choose a sample paper from a course on Leininger’s website.
9. W
Feb 15
Keenan, “The Return of Casuistry” CR, 26-35; DUE: Identify Keenan’s thesis and how
he executes “Casuistry’s Four Main Steps” in “The Case of Simon.” In short, what does
Keenan offer as 1) paradigm cases, 2) their moral justification, 3) relevant analogies, and
4) a moral conclusion about what to do as a result of the weight of the analogies?
Case Discussion 2: The Case of Simon a. Adrienne Mueller b. Katherine Haas
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 2 of 8
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. M Feb 20 Jonsen, “Casuistry as Methodology in Clinical Ethics.” CR, 36-42; Recommended:
Leininger, “The Call to Civic Engagement in Gaudium Et Spes.” CR, 53-59; DUE: a)
Identify Jonsen’s thesis and “Casuistry’s Four Main Steps” in “Debbie’s Case” and b)
Explain how the four features for medical ethics cases (medical indications, patient
preferences, quality of life, and social/economic factors) guide these four main steps.
Case Disc. 3: An End of Life Case a. Alex Spotswood b. Charlie McGlynn
11. W Feb 22
Rennick, “A Cabbit in Sheep’s Clothing.” (Cloning) CR, 43-52; DUE: a) Identify
Rennick’s thesis, b) explain how a “cabbit” illustrates it (hint: his thesis involves our
“cosmological categories”), c) identify the paradigmatic moral practices that Rennick
offers for assessing the morality of the practice of human cloning, and d) briefly indicate
which analogies between these practices you find most persuasive.
Case Disc. 4: Human Cloning (cabbit) a. Brandon Green b. Antonio Apodaca
Thursday, February 23 at noon PAPER 1 is DUE in basket marked “Papers for Dr. Leininger” in L32
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12. M Feb 27 Discussion of Paper 2 assignment. CR, 117-118; Jonsen & Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry
(The Case of John, Perjury, & Pride) CR, 62-70; To be discussed in class (not turned in): a)
Explain which of casuistry’s four main steps Jonsen and Toulmin argue cannot be followed
in “The Case of John” and why; b) According to Jonsen and Toulmin, how should we
proceed in seeking to resolve this case? c) Compare their analysis of the Case of John with
Rennick’s analysis of human cloning.
Case 5: Case of John or An Unprecedented Case a. Zach Dong b. Bobby Morgan
13. W Mar 1
From Story to Morality via Analogy. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise & RQs CR, 71-85;
DUE: According to Spohn: a) How does doing “likewise” avoid the extremes of univocal
(mere repetition) and equivocal (utterly unrelated)? b) Which of the three foot washing
rituals is most faithful to the original and what character traits displayed in the original
support his choice? c) How do character traits and analogies (as described in the ratios on
p. 55) enable us to use a story for moral guidance in our own lives? d) What central
character trait does the Good Samaritan display and how does shape what and how he
sees the world?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mar 4-12 No class: Spring Break
___________________________________________________________________________________
14. M Mar 13 Why Narrative? Burkett, “God Created Me to be a Slave.” CR, 86-90; O'Connell, “The
Roles of Story” CR, 91-97; DUE: a) What story shapes Fatma Mint Mamadou’s
character and actions? Why? b) How does the Burkett article illustrate O’Connell’s
arguments about how stories form moral character? c) Use Burkett and O’Connell to
explain the following claim: “Moral character, i.e., identity or the established pattern of
how we exercise our freedom, is the fundamental source of moral judgment and action.”
15. W Mar 15
Hauerwas, "Growth in the Christian Life: A Story." CR, 98-102; Keenan, “Cultivating the
Cardinal Virtues,” “Hope and Leadership,” & RQs CR, 103-116; DUE: Hauerwas tells a
story about how his sense of the morally fitting response to his father’s gift changed as his
moral character changed (grew). a) How does this story illustrate Spohn’s arguments
about the relationship between moral character and moral judgment? b) Explain how one
of the cardinal virtues discussed in Keenan could have helped Hauerwas respond fittingly
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 3 of 8
to his father’s gift. c) Now apply this cardinal virtue to your own life to illustrate the
following statement: “A virtue is a disposition (or inclination and ability) of character to
act in morally good ways.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
16. M Mar 20 Film: Sometimes in April (140 min); Work on Viewing Questions due on Mar 27.
17. W Mar 22 DUE: Paper 2; Film: Sometimes in April
_____________________________________________________________________________________
18. M Mar 27 Guest Speaker: Stephen Yavorsky, S.J. DUE: Viewing Questions a) What virtues and
vices are displayed by the characters in the film? and b) How might Spohn’s analogical
imagination help us to move from Sometimes in April to moral reflection on the proper
role of U.S. citizens in responding to genocide and conflict in other parts of the globe?
19. W Mar 29
Which Narratives? Discussion of Final Presentation & Paper Assignment CR, 183-185;
Elshtain, “Christian Theologian Contrarian.” CR, 119-120; Hauerwas, “On Taking
Religion Seriously: The Challenge of Jonestown.” CR, 121-129; DUE: a) What
paradigmatic moral practices guide Hauerwas’s moral judgments about the actions of the
followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown? b) What justification does he offer for the moral
distinction between these practices? c) What biblical stories (and interpretations thereof)
underlie these justifications for Hauerwas? (Consult the Anchor Bible Dictionary in the
library for help with this question.)
Case Disc. 6: The Case of Jonestown a. Monica Atencio b. Ondreyah Adargo
_____________________________________________________________________________________
20. M Apr 3
Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs CR, 130-139; Hauerwas, “Self-Deception
and Autobiography” & RQs CR, 140-151; DUE: According to Hauerwas, a) What is selfdeception? b) What are its causes? How can integrity increase the temptation to selfdeception? c) What did Speer lack that could have saved him? How could it have saved
him? d) Identify Speer’s vision of his role in life and compare it to how you envision your
role in life and your career.
Case 7: Case of Albert Speer: Self-deceived? a. Slade Bigelow b. Laura Hornung
21. W Apr 5
Joint class with Pietra Rivoli in Loyola 5; Assigned Reading: 1) Listen to the 3
NPR stories at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4622200; 2) Go to
go to www.amazon.com, and type in the name of the book, The Travels of a T-Shirt in a
Global Economy, and read the excerpt from her book online (or from this book on reserve
at DML); Due: Come to class with at least one written question to ask Dr. Rivoli based
what you have listened to on the NPR website and the excerpt from her book.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
22. M Apr 10 Hauerwas, “Casuistry as a Narrative Art.” CR, 152-164 (No reading questions due. Come
prepared to discuss: a) According to Hauerwas, how is casuistry a narrative art? b) How
does narrative need casuistry in order to inform moral reflection? c) Explain Hauerwas’s
argument that casuistry and narrative/character are interdependent? d) Give examples of
each of the above (a, b, and c).
23. W Apr 12
Student Presentations
Assigned Reading: Cunningham, “The Forgiveness of Sins”
No reading questions due. Come prepared to discuss: a) How is the Christian virtue of
mercy narratively shaped? b) How should this virtue shape Christian moral character &
inform reflection on what Prejean and the State of LA should have done in this case?
CR, 165-173; Recommended: View film Dead Man Walking (at DML); Due: 11 copies of
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 4 of 8
the Final Presentation Handouts: Katherine Haas, Zach Dong , Ondreyah Adargo
_____________________________________________________________________________________
24. M Apr 17 Student Presentations
Assigned Reading: April 17 Final Presentation Handouts
Recommended: Tilley, “Stories of Jesus II” CR, 174-182 Due: 11 copies of the Final
Presentation Handouts: Charlie McGlynn, Bao Thao, Slade Bigelow
PRESENTATIONS (20-25 minutes each for presentation & discussion):
1. Katherine Haas
2. Zach Dong
3. Ondreyah Adargo
25. W Apr 19
Student Presentations
Assigned Reading: April 19 Final Presentation Handouts
Due: 11 copies of the Final Presentation Handouts for Laura Hornung, Monica
Atencio, Erika Pendergraff
PRESENTATIONS (20-25 minutes each for presentation & discussion):
4. Charlie McGlynn
5. Bao Thao
6. Slade Bigelow
_____________________________________________________________________________________
26. M Apr 24 Student Presentations
Assigned Reading: April 24 Final Presentation Handouts
PRESENTATIONS (20-25 minutes each for presentation & discussion):
7. Laura Hornung
8. Monica Atencio 9. Erika Pendergraff
27. W Apr 26 Last Class Meeting
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FINAL PAPER: DUE Wednesday, May 12 at Noon in Loyola 32 (in the basket marked “Papers for Dr.
Leininger”)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Recommended Texts (on reserve at DML):
Barber, Benjamin R. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books, 1995.
Friedman, Thomas L. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2005.
McCormick, Patrick T. and Russell B. Connors, Jr. Facing Ethical Issues: Dimensions of Character,
Choices, and Community. New York: Paulist Press, 2002.
Pence, Gregory E. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases that Have Shaped Medical Ethics,
with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004 (or 3rd ed.)
Patricia Beattie Jung et. al., eds. Moral Issues & Christian Responses, 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003.
Rivoli, Pietra. The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets,
Power, and Politics of World Trade. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
DESCRIPTION
This course will use contemporary issues, cases, and film to explore how Christian character might
inform moral judgment about what it means to be a global citizen today. Our inquiry into global
citizenship will begin with the question: “How should Christians respond to consumerism and global
economic realities?” Next, we examine and employ two traditional ways that Christians have reflected on
moral questions: casuistry and character ethics. First, how can casuistry inform moral reflection on what it
means to be a good citizen of the world? Second, how can character ethics (and in particular, virtues
displayed through stories) contribute to such discernment? What might moral integrity and self deception
look like? We will then ask how these two forms of discernment might enrich each other. In particular,
how might Christians move from the story of Jesus to morally good living by means of analogical
imagination?
OBJECTIVES
To develop an understanding of
1. consumerism and other global issues
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 5 of 8
2. casuistry and character ethics and how Christian scholars employ these approaches
3. how character and case-based reasoning might assist reflection on global issues and enrich
our lives
HOW TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES
1. Textually Informed Class Participation and Consistent Attendance
 Attend each class (attendance at every class meeting matters) with
a) the assigned texts completed and in hand,
b) at least one question or reflection on the readings (I may ask you to write this on the board
at the start of class),
c) typewritten answers to assigned reading questions listed as “DUE,” and
d) answers (in your notes or in your head) to any other reading questions provided.
 During class, ask and answer questions and offer reflections in a manner that demonstrates
thoughtful reading of the assigned texts and consultation of a dictionary on important yet
unfamiliar terms.
 You are responsible for all announcements and material covered in each class. Form “buddy”
groups of 3-4 students who will pick up handouts, graded assignments (if you grant them
permission), take notes, and pass on changes in the syllabus or other announcements made
in class whenever one or more of their buddies are absent. If you become ill and/or are
unable to attend at a class meeting, it is your responsibility to obtain these items from
another class member and ask the professor questions remaining after you have read them.
2. Thesis of Each Assigned Reading and Answers to Reading Questions
Where reading questions are listed on the syllabus as “DUE” for an assigned reading, your
typewritten, single-spaced answers must begin with your statement of the author’s central thesis in your
own words and in no more than 1-2 sentences. If you write succinctly you should be able to complete these
assignments in one to one and a half pages. I will not read anything beyond two pages. For the reading
questions (“RQs”) on Beaudoin’s Consuming Faith, you need not answer every question. Instead, choose
the most challenging questions that will demonstrate the deepest engagement with his argument (and can be
completed in at least one full page). After we finish reading Beaudoin, the reading questions appear on the
syllabus and all of these the questions listed must be answered.
I will grade these assignments as follows and drop your two lowest scores:
0 = nothing turned in or e-mailed before start of class (If you e-mail this assignment, place a printout in my
basket or bring it to the next class that you attend.)
Check minus (65) = missed the argument significantly and/or fails to show good critical reflection
Check (83) = demonstrates a grasp of much of the argument and shows some good critical reflection
Check plus (95) = nailed the argument and demonstrates outstanding critical reflection and questions
3. Case Discussion
Groups of students will have at least 30 minutes to lead discussion on a case that they have selected.
In the first 5 minutes, students should (1) introduce the case and (2) provide a set of questions or interactive
exercises for class discussion. The questions/exercises should incorporate ideas from the assigned readings
and lectures. The group is also responsible for moderating the discussion and finding ways to ensure that
all class members to participate. Students must prepare back-up leaders in the event of an unexpected
absence on the day of their discussion. If no one is present to conduct the exercise as scheduled, the result
will be a zero for this assignment.
Of the 100 points possible for class participation, 10 are allotted to your case discussion. The case
discussion will be assessed on 10 point scale using the following criteria:
a) Facilitate Class Learning. How well did the group help the class understand and examine the
relevance of a religious studies concept for a contemporary issue/event?
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 6 of 8
b) Creativity and Originality. How well did the group show creativity and originality in designing an
exercise that engaged the class?
c) Research & Preparation. How well did the group research their material and prepare for questions?
d) Responsibility for Getting the Job Done as Scheduled. Did the group make arrangements to prepare
other classmates to fill in if one or more group members should miss class (if no student is present
to conduct the entire exercise, the result will be a zero for this component).
4. Student Presentation
Students will present on the topic of their final paper and should achieve two aims: 1) teach the
class about a global issue and possible moral responses; and 2) generate discussion that will enrich the
presenter’s final paper. Presenters must prepare back-up presenters in the event of an unexpected absence
on the day of their presentation. If no one presents on the date scheduled, the result will be a zero for this
assignment. The class schedule does not allow extra days to make up a missed presentation.
Of the 100 points possible on the final paper, 5 points are allotted to this presentation and another 5
points are allotted to your reflection on an outside event (discussed below). I will use the criteria for case
discussions (above) with one addition: 1 of the 5 points will be automatically awarded or denied based
upon whether or not the student brings photocopies of the one page typewritten presentation summary to
the class meeting prior to his/her scheduled presentation.
5. Three Events and Three Papers
Three Events. 5 points of the 100 possible for each paper will be based upon a one page, singlespaced, typewritten reflection on a public lecture or event focused upon Christian character and/or global
issues that the student attended prior to the due date for each paper and attached to the back of the paper.
Any of the four talks in the “Catholicism and the Modern World Speaker Series” (at 7:30 p.m. in the
Science Amphitheatre on 2/2, 2/23, 4/20 and in the Mountain View Room, ALC on 2/21) meet this
requirement. Many of the talks sponsored by student life would as well (just ask). However, you are free
to attend other public talks in the area, visit a local organization working for global peace and justice,
observe a local protest about a global issue, or any other experience that involves significant learning about
issues directly related to the course.
If you attend a talk, your reflection must contain each the following (please underline each in your
paper): 1. Thesis: in 1-2 sentences state the main point advanced; 2. Support: 2-3 most important reasons
offered in support of thesis; 3. Analysis (this must constitute 50% of your paper): your own critical
reflection on why the argument was or was not persuasive, what was left out that you would add, what
would follow if one accepted the speaker’s argument, etc. If you choose an experience other than a public
lecture, your paper must include 1. Key Concept from the Course: explain in 1-3 sentences 2. Brief
Description of Experience: 3-4 sentences and 3.Analysis (this must constitute 50% of your paper): your
critical reflection on the relevance of the concept for analyzing and describing your experience, the
questions and possible insights your experience generates for understanding moral character and global
citizenship. Reflection papers will be graded (on a 1-5 scale) for the level of learning and critical analysis
demonstrated as well as grammar and writing effectiveness.
Paper 1: Analysis of a Scholarly Perspective on Economic Life. 6-7 pages. In no more than two
pages explain how a scholar or a church document approaches some aspect of economic life, such as food
production or the clothes we buy. In the remaining 4-5 pages analyze this approach in light of the course
materials and one other scholarly perspective. If you choose to write on Consuming Faith, you must use
one outside scholar. Good outside scholars include Catholic Social Encyclicals, pastoral statements from
other Christian church bodies, Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld, Pietra Rivoli, Travels of a T-shirt
in the Global Economy, Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat, and Naomi Klein, No Logo (the book).
Paper 2: An Exercise in Casuistry. 6-7 pages plus a 1-2 page appendix. Explain “Casuistry’s Four
Main Steps” (in no more than 1.5 pages) and then, drawing upon the resources of either Christian tradition
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 7 of 8
or some other source, execute these four steps in your own casuistic analysis of a case with global
implications. Attach 1-2 page case-summary as an appendix and do not count as part of the 6-7 pages.
Final Paper: 9-12 pages (excluding appendices).
Option 1. An Exercise in Integrating Narrative and Casuistry. Select a global issue and
demonstrate your ability to use 1) casuistry and 2) narrative ethics to reflect morally on the global issue.
Next, discuss how 1) and 2) can complement each other and/or conflict with respect to the issue addressed.
Be sure to incorporate Spohn’s arguments concerning the analogical imagination in your analysis. “What
are the most relevant analogies between the story and the case?” “How might one embody Christian or
other normative moral character in responding to the case?”
Option 2. Analysis of Two Moral Perspectives on a Global Issue. In your own words and with your
own examples, explain a moral issue with global implications and the main arguments of the two scholars
concerning this issue (using no more than 25% of your paper length). Analyze these arguments in light
of the concepts from the course materials (readings, films, and discussions). Explain your conclusions and
show why they matter.
Late papers are marked down 1/3 letter grade per 24-hour period. Papers (typewritten, doublespaced, and 14 point Times font) will be graded upon how well they
a) execute the requirements in the “Writing Guidelines” on the course website [these include
such things as providing an abstract and following an accepted manual of style such as Diana
Hacker, A Writer’s Reference. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003 (available at the
Writing Center)].
b) demonstrate depth of understanding of the course concepts and ability to employ these
concepts analytically by developing your own thoughtful examples, analogies, connections,
and insights (simply paraphrasing assigned or outside texts does not fulfill the assignment), and
c) make use of the Writing Center in Loyola Hall Room #1 (tel. 303-458-4039).
Plagiarism (see Hacker, 331 ff) includes a failure to properly cite and acknowledge the sources of words,
arguments, and ideas that are not your own, will typically result in a failing grade for the course and
referral to the appropriate University authority.
Rewrite. Students may turn in a rewrite of papers 1 and 2 no later than 7 days after the day that the
instructor returned graded papers to the class. Rewrites will not be accepted without attaching
1) the original graded paper,
2) a slip showing a consultation with the Writing Center on the rewrite and
3) a redlined version of the paper (or use of a yellow highlighter) to indicate text changed
from the original paper (the Writing Center can show you how to do this).
If the rewrite grade is higher, I will average it with the original paper grade. If it is lower, the original
grade will stand.
ASSESSMENT
Class Participation, Attendance, & Case Discussion
10%
Reading Questions
20%
Paper 1 (with 5 points for Outside Event)
20%
Paper 2 (with 5 points for Outside Event)
20%
Final Paper (with 5 points for Outside Event and 5 points for Presentation)
30%
TOTAL
100%
A
AA
94-100
90-93
B+
B
B-
87-89
83-86
80-82
Outstanding; mastery of course material
C+ 77-79
C 73-76
C- 70-72
D
D+ 67-69
D 63-66
D- 60-62
Inferior work; minimally acceptable to pass
CCS 400 Leininger
Syllabus: Page 8 of 8
B Very good understanding of course material
F Fails to meet requirements; very little
understanding
C Good understanding of course material
Pass C- or higher; pass/fail student with a “D+ = F
POLICIES
Exams must be taken as scheduled.
Questions about grades are discussed outside of class sessions.
Students must know and comply with the “academic dishonesty policy” of Regis University. I
have a zero tolerance policy toward cheating, e.g., talking during an exam, using inappropriate sources of
information, and submitting the work of others as your own. Cite the author is an idea is not your own.
Disabilities will be accommodated after a student has registered at Carroll Hall 225 (x4941).
Changes to this syllabus, the course requirements, office hours, etc. will be announced in class
throughout the semester or via e-mail. E-mails will be sent to the e-mail address provided by the registrar.
Thus, be sure that the registrar has your current e-mail address. Changes in office hours will be posted
outside Dr. Leininger’s office door
Office Hours. On MW at 11:30 a.m. I typically walk to the cafeteria and am available to meet with
students over lunch (please don’t hesitate to approach me there if you want to talk about anything). If you
prefer a more private setting, you can meet me in my office at the other office hours. If you have class or
work during the office hours, contact me after class or by telephone (not e-mail) to arrange an alternative
time.
Correspondence. Use voicemail rather than e-mail for time sensitive correspondence.