Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 78

Teaching Portfolio

Nicholas Zautra

(Page numbers correspond to .pdf)

Teaching Biography ...................................................................................................................... 2

Statement of Teaching Philosophy ............................................................................................... 3

List of Courses Taught .................................................................................................................. 5

Teaching Evaluations: Executive Summary ................................................................................. 6

Complete Teaching Evaluation Sets


 Ethical Issues in Biological and Medical Sciences, Spring 2018 ................................... 10
 Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry, Fall 2015 ..................... 17

Student Letters of Support


 Divyam Balani, Animal Research Ethics........................................................................ 25
 Tyler Moon, Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry ................. 27
 Robert Napier, Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science................................... 30
 Elijah Bittinger, Philosophy of Satire ............................................................................. 32

Sample Course Syllabi


 Ethical Issues in Biological and Biomedical Sciences ................................................... 34
 Animal Research Ethics .................................................................................................. 39
 Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science ........................................................... 47
 Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry ...................................... 53
 Philosophy of Satire ........................................................................................................ 61
Teaching Biography

Evidence of my teaching ability, in addition to being reflected in my statement of teaching


philosophy, list of courses taught, course evaluations, student letters of support, and sample
syllabi, is perhaps best expressed in a teaching biography written by the Indiana University
Graduate School in honor of my having been awarded the IU Lieber Memorial Teaching
Associate Instructor Award for Teaching Excellence (2017)1:

Nick Zautra's ambition and love of teaching have marked him as an exceptional doctoral
student and associate instructor. Not only has Zautra taught six courses, but three of them
were of his own design; these include a class on the philosophy of satire, the history and
philosophy of psychiatry, and animal research ethics. "No other student of mine has
designed this many courses of his or her own," says Colin Allen, Provost Professor of
Cognitive Science, and History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine, "and this is a
testament to Nick's enthusiasm for teaching - enthusiasm that is directly manifested in his
classroom work."

Student reports indicate that Zautra teaches them how to build arguments, think critically,
create new ways to learn and think, and evaluate a situation before making a decision. "Not
only are these skills transformative for these students' college education and learning, but
these are life skills they can carry forward into the very way they see the world, navigate it,
and shape their own lives and the lives of those around them," says Anthony Guest-Scott,
academic coordinator at the Student Academic Center. One of his students told Zautra,
"You actually make us think! This is hard! But I like it!" This is what Zautra does best:
helping his students examine the foundations of their arguments and think deeply about the
course material, instead of skimming the surface of it. No matter how varied the courses he
teaches, critical reading and thinking skills are invariably built into each one.

Recently, Zautra taught a summer course called Learning Strategies for the New College
Student. Instructor selection for this course is rigorous, with only IU's top doctoral students
considered for the assignment. According to James Capshew, university historian, Zautra
"is, simply put, the best among our current crop of associate instructors, and ranks among
the best that I have encountered in my 25 years of teaching at IU." While teaching, Zautra
walks a fine line between challenging and encouraging his students, quickly developing a
rapport with them. His engaging and varied teaching methods draw out even timid students
in the classroom, and his ability to create a challenging class dialogue while maintaining
student participation is impressive. His student evaluations have been glowing. In order to
receive constructive feedback for improvement, he has encouraged students to give critical
evaluations beyond the standard forms.

Favorable evaluations are always a goal for instructors, but Zautra's determination to
improve distinguishes him. His colleagues and students note that his pedagogy is excellent,
and his dedication to student growth is the hallmark of a beloved professor-in-the-making.
Zautra's commitment to academic excellence and his unwavering zeal for learning have
earned him the respect and admiration of faculty and students alike.

1
https://honorsandawards.iu.edu/search-awards/honoree.shtml?honoreeID=8096
Statement of Teaching Philosophy
Nicholas Zautra

How does it all connect? My central goal for my students is for them to develop the capacity to
work at the intersection of different fields—to see how different ideas and frameworks hang
together and inform one another. As a philosopher, this skill is essential. By providing students
the opportunity to learn by making connections between ideas and concepts, I challenge them to
deepen their learning experience, as well as enable them to build their own pathways by
choosing reflective writing assignments, discussion questions, and creative final projects which
make sense to them. As a result, content is often rooted in life experience, giving an authentic
purpose for learning and connecting it to a real-world context. I teach in two primary ways—
through in-class activities that demonstrate the synthesis of ideas, and authentic assessments.

What do you think, and why? In addition to the goal of becoming integrative thinkers, I hope
students will acquire concrete philosophical tools, such as critical reading and thinking skills that
allow them to interpret, analyze, and assess arguments. To accomplish this, I utilize an inquiry-
based approach I adopted from philosopher of science Elisabeth Lloyd where I teach students
how to read and engage with each assigned paper, fragment, or book three times. First, I
encourage them to “read generously,” i.e., to see what the general issues and central concerns of
the author(s) are. Second, I instruct them to “read sympathetically.” I show the students how to
make sense of the writing, and how to understand the motivations for each move and conclusion.
Third, I tell them to read critically–but only on this third reading. I teach them how to locate
parts in the discussion where assumptions are being made. I teach them how to develop their
own view about each assumption and conclusion in the piece, and about the significance of the
central concerns of the author. With the above strategy, students learn how to provide an
articulate and sympathetic version of a reading. Such an interpretation, I explain, is a prerequisite
for developing any and all interesting critiques of the author’s views.

What does it all mean? My approach to teaching and learning, based in my genuine enthusiasm
and passion to grow as an instructor, has undoubtedly been informed by directing the same kind
of philosophical methods and critical thinking tools I implement in my research on to the subject
of teaching itself. What does it mean to be a good teacher? What is the purpose of a lecture?
Why am I using this active learning technique? What do I achieve as an educator when I assign
this type of essay? To enlarge the content and elevate the intellectual level of my courses, my
department and, in turn, my students, myself along with fellow doctoral student David Rogers
developed the History and Philosophy of Science Pedagogy Reading Group. The group
developed out of our mutual need to create a safe and supportive informal setting for associate
instructors to discuss teaching so that we could read new literature on pedagogy, attend each
other’s classes for informal peer review, and support one another as we experiment and grow as
aspiring academic professionals. I can honestly say I would not be the teacher I am today (and
hope to be tomorrow) without this self-organized community of graduate colleagues.

How can we do better? Following the completion of my first solo-teaching experience with
HPSC X200: Scientific Reasoning during my first year as a doctoral student, I received a manila
envelope containing my first set of student course evaluations. To my delight, I received nothing
but glowing reviews. Even the supposedly “negative” comments were cast in a positive light
(e.g., “I wasn't a huge fan of the course material, honestly. The instructor was great, but its (sic)
not a course I would ever willingly take again”). I thought, “Wow, these course evaluations are
great! I’m the greatest teacher ever! This is how course evaluations will always be, right?”

Oh, how I was wrong. It turns out each new course you teach presents a new set of students and a
new set of challenges. Teaching a course of your own design is especially challenging, for not
only do you have to develop and select your own assignments and assessments, but you must
construct the very instructional foundation on which your course is built! Thus, with each new
course I design and teach, I make every effort to utilize feedback from student evaluations to
improve my teaching. For example, following the teaching of Animal Research Ethics, a few
students expressed concerns regarding the organization of the format leading up to the “Ethics
Bowl.” Genuinely concerned and hoping to improve as a teacher, I reached out to a few students
and solicited additional feedback. One bright student, Christina Sluka, was extremely helpful in
this regard, writing up a two-page formal evaluation of my teaching, of which I have since put
into practice and have seen reflected positively in recent student evaluations. From this
experience, I’ve learned that one of the best ways to improve upon my teaching is to develop a
strong professional connection with my students.

How can I contribute? By promoting the integrative study and the development of philosophical
skills in my courses, and through self-reflection on my teaching inside and outside of class, I
strive to contribute to the intellectual growth of my students. One experience in particular where
I came to see tremendous student growth came when I was selected to teach for the 2016
Summer GROUPS Program through the Student Academic Center (SAC). Instructors selected
for the GROUPS program are considered to be among the university’s top doctoral student
instructors and are expected to possess substantial expertise in the teaching of critical reading
and thinking skills, experience working with diverse student populations, and evidence of strong
teaching background (particularly pertaining to collaborative learning and small group
instruction).

For the GROUPS program, I had the privilege of teaching EDUC X152: The University
Experience: Engagement, Critical Thinking, and Problem Solving. Topic: the 1970’s to 14
incoming freshman student athletes: 11 male football players, and 3 female field hockey players.
The course is designed to help new students acclimate to the IU Bloomington campus as they
learn to meet the academic demands of college. The challenge of teaching this particular
population of hard-working students with unbelievably busy athletic schedules what they need to
know to succeed in college, while simultaneously getting them to think philosophically about
“big picture” questions was one of the most rewarding teaching experiences of my career. This
was further confirmed during informal office hour meetings, when asking each student whether
they saw a difference between the course they were taking and their high school courses, they all
exclaimed just how invigorating this course was for them. It is my hope that by continuing to
teach, and striving to improve my teaching, I can continue to promote intellectual growth in my
students for many years to come.
List of Courses Taught

COURSE: EDUC-X150: Becoming the Best Student


TERM: Fall 2018
CAMPUS: Student Academic Center, Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 76 (Four 2-credit 8-week classes of 19 students)
COURSE: HPSC-X111: Ethical Issues in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences
TERM: Spring 2018
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 34 (One 3-credit class)
COURSE: COLL-P155: Public Oral Communication
TERM: Fall 2016/Spring 2017
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 96 (Four lab sections of 24 students each)
COURSE: EDUC-X152: Critical Thinking/Problem Solving for the New College Student
TERM: Summer 2016
CAMPUS: Student Academic Center, Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Intermediate
ENROLLED: 14
COURSE: HPSC-X100: Animal Research Ethics
TERM: Spring 2016
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 12 (One 3-credit class)
COURSE: HPSC X100: Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry
TERM: Fall 2015
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 12 (One 3-credit class)
COURSE: COGS-Q240: Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science
TERM: Spring 2015
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Intermediate (Intensive Writing)
ENROLLED: 19 (One 4-credit class)
COURSE: CLLC-C210: Philosophy of Satire
TERM: Fall 2014
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 12 (One 3-credit class)
COURSE: HPSC-X200: Scientific Reasoning
TERM Fall 2013
CAMPUS: Indiana University Bloomington
TYPE: Undergraduate, Introductory
ENROLLED: 33 (One 3-credit class)
Teaching Evaluations, Executive Summary

Quantitative Summary of Teaching Evaluations for Indiana University Bloomington


Overall Q1: How Q2: How Q3: How Q4: How Q5: How
Score likely would much did the clearly were effectively much did
you be to instructor learning goals was class the
recommend motivate you and objectives time used instructor
this course to do your communicated to help you emphasize
with this best work? to you? learn? student
instructor? learning?

EDUC-X150 3.35 3.18 3.39 3.36 3.2 3.6


Becoming the Best (Mean2: (Mean: 3.6) (Mean: 3.7) (Mean: 3.7) (Mean: 3.4) (Mean: 3.9)
Student (Fall ’18) 3.66)
HPSC-X100: Ethical 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9
Issues in the (Mean: (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.4) (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.5)
Biomedical Sciences 3.36)
(Spring ’18)
COLL-P155: Public 3.1 3.12 3.44 2.9 2.6 3.44
Oral Communication (Mean: (Mean: 3.0) (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.2) (Mean: 3.0) (Mean: 3.4)
(Fall ‘16/Spring ‘17) 3.18)
EDUC-X152: Critical 3.54 3.2 4.0 3.5 3.1 3.9
Thinking/Problem (Mean: (Mean: 3.5) (Mean: 3.6) (Mean: 3.5) (Mean: 3.4) (Mean: 3.8)
Solving for the New 3.56)
College Student
(Summer ’16)
HPSC-X100: Animal 2.94 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.6 3.4
Research Ethics (Mean: (Mean: 3.0) (Mean: 3.2) (Mean: 3.0) (Mean: 2.8) (Mean: 3.4)
(Spring ‘16) 3.08)
HPSC-X100: 3.34 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.9
Disordered Minds: (Mean: (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.6) (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.1) (Mean: 3.6)
The History and 3.38)
Philosophy of
Psychiatry (Fall ‘15)
COGS-Q240: 3.38 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.6
Philosophical (Mean: (Mean: 3.2) (Mean: 3.3) (Mean: 3.4) (Mean: 3.1) (Mean: 3.4)
Foundations of 3.3)
Cognitive Science
(Spring ‘15)
CLLC-C210: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Philosophy of Satire3
(Fall ‘14)
HPSC-X200: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scientific Reasoning4
(Fall ‘13)
Overall Teaching 3.35 3.2 3.52 3.3 3.0 3.7
Score:

Mean scores: Q1: 1 = Not at all likely, 4 = Very likely; Q2: 1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot; Q3: 1 = Not at all Clearly, 4 =
Very Clearly; Q4: 1 = Not at all Effectively, 4 = Very effectively; Q5: 1 = Not at all, 4 = A lot

2
Mean refers to Department mean.
3
Only qualitative assessments were administered for Collins Living-Learning Center courses.
4
Separate quantitative assessment administered
Teaching Evaluations, Executive Summary
Sample Student Comments

Fall 2018
EDUC-X150: Becoming the Best Student

What were the instructor’s strengths, and what did you find most helpful about the course
content?

 “Very confident, friendly and nice, give instructions about assignments very clear, and
very understanding and considerate.”
 “Good at making sure we understand the goals of the course, and I thought the readings
and reflections were helpful.”
 “He really motivated us to do our best.
 “Very charismatic speaker, willing to take students advice.

Spring 2018
HPSC-X111: Ethical Issues in Biological and Medical Sciences

“What did you like most about this course and this instructor?”

 “The course was set up differently than any other course I have taken before and I really
enjoyed the complete discussion aspect of the class. Nick is great!! Awesome at leading
discussions and making students feel heard.”
 “The discussion must have been my favorite part. Because all though discussion might
have lulled in the slightest professor zautra was able to keep it natural and flowing.”
 “He is laid back and emphasizes the importance of class discussion in an unbiased way.
His class was interesting and unique. As a junior it was refreshing to take.”
 “I liked how this class was different from your typical ‘read this textbook and listen to
this lecture.’ I enjoyed watching the movies and being able to develop my own ideas
rather than just listen to others.”
 “I liked how our class handled debates and evaluated ethical dilemmas from all
perspectives.”

Fall 2016/Spring 2017


COLL-P155: Public Oral Communication

“What could the instructor do to improve teaching effectiveness?”

 “There isn’t much honestly. I felt like Mr. Zautra was very on top of it. He helped me
comprehend the requirements for this class.”
 “He was great. Nothing additional could be improved.”
 “Nothing much, it was a good course that was effectively taught.”
Summer 2016
EDUC-X152: Critical Thinking/Problem Solving for the New College Student

What were the instructor’s strengths, and what did you find most helpful about the course
content?

 “Good at communicating expectations and teaching material clearly. The course content
was directed at improving our critical thinking skills, which will be helpful in my other
college courses.”
 “His ability to interact with students; helped prepare for college.”
 “Accommodating to every learning style.”
 “He was very understandable and communicative.”
 “Nick was very friendly and explained what he was looking for.”

Spring 2016
HPSC-X100: Animal Research Ethics

“What did you like most about this course and this instructor?”

 “He was very clearly passionate about the class and worked hard to make sure that
everyone felt their contributions to the class were valid and intelligent points. Very nice
and fair.”
 “He was knowledgeable about what we were discussing and always let us discuss issues
in class.”
 “Nick really encouraged student learning and discussion. Student opinions were always
valued and discussions was (sic) rich and worthwhile.”
 “The method that Nicholas used for instructing was well done. How he used the first half
of the semester to familiarize us with ethical knowledge; then showed us how to
implement those ideas into practical use.”
 “best – enthusiasm and love for students.”

Fall 2015
HPSC-X100: Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry

“What did you like most about this course and this instructor?”

 “I liked that the learning objectives were presented before each class lecture. This helped
guide the lecture and show what I should be learning about a particular topic.”
 “The instructor was an excellent communicator.”
 “Vibrant lecturing, entertaining, encourages class participation. Professor Zautra was
always very approachable any time I had a problem in class. If someone didn’t
understand something it was very easy to ask him for clarification. You never really felt
stupid for asking questions or giving wrong answers.”
 “The instructor did his best to make the topics accessible and relevant to students, thus
making the class interesting and enjoyable.”
 “I liked how professor Zautra was always involved with the discussion rather than just
standing in front of the class lecturing. He did a very good job of presenting the
information in a way that we could understand have a discussion about. The course
material was very interesting and always captured my full attention in class.

Fall 2014
CLLC-C210: Philosophy of Satire

Do you have other suggestions or comments—for the instructor OR for the Collins’ Board of
Educational Programming (BOEP), which selects courses?

 “I hope that Nick can teach this course again in the future because it was interesting,
enriching, and engaging. I would recommend this course to a friend.”
 “I thoroughly enjoyed this course and have already recommended it to friends if it is to
be taught in the future.”
 “This course was excellent and I would highly recommend it.”
 “I’d definitely recommend for this course to be taught again.”
 “Yes, have Nick teach this again! I absolutely loved this course and would take it again if
I could.”

Fall 2013
HPSC-X200: Scientific Reasoning

What did you like most about this course and/or instructor?

 “Nick’s energy and personality really turn the class into interesting topic (sic). I came
into this class planning to go on a philosophy grind but the class title actually matched the
description! Loves this course, ended up being a favorite. Enjoyed what I learn.”
 “Nick was very knowledgeable on the subject matter & encourages different opinions
without judgment. Overall, a great teacher!”
 “Nick was very organized & made the class interesting. Topics generated good
conversations & readings were thought provoking.
 “I really enjoyed this class in that it included all of the subject matter involved in the
sciences-but as an upperclassman it could’ve been more rigorous. Nick did an awesome
job as instructor, he was very respected!”
 “He is very funny and very enthusiastic. Wants everyone to do well. I learned more by
his teaching style and more out of his lecture than most other classes. I’d highly suggest
him.”
IUB Spring 2018 Online Course Questionnaire Individual Report for HPSC
X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis
Zautra)
IUB Spring 2018 Course Questionnaire
Project Audience 34
Responses Received 21
Response Ratio 61.8%

Creation Date Mon, May 14, 2018


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

University Questions

How clearly were course learning goals and objectives communicated to you?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How clearly were
course learning goals
3.8 21 0.4 3.3 144 0.9 3.4 85220 0.8
and objectives
communicated to you?

How effectively was class time used to help you learn?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How effectively was
class time used to help 3.8 21 0.4 3.3 140 0.9 3.2 84992 0.9
you learn?

How effectively did out-of-class work (assignments, readings, practice, etc.) help you
learn?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 2/7


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How effectively did out-
of-class work
(assignments, 3.6 21 0.6 3.1 143 0.9 3.1 84880 0.9
readings, practice, etc.)
help you learn?

How available was the instructor to provide help when needed (in person, by email,
office hours, etc.)?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How available was the
instructor to provide
help when needed (in 3.6 21 0.7 3.5 143 0.6 3.5 93482 0.7
person, by email, office
hours, etc.)?

How likely would you be to recommend this course with this instructor?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How likely would you be
to recommend this
3.8 21 0.4 3.3 144 1.0 3.3 93775 0.9
course with this
instructor?

How much did the instructor motivate you to do your best work?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 3/7


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How much did the
instructor motivate you 3.7 21 0.5 3.4 142 0.9 3.5 93169 0.8
to do your best work?

How much did the instructor emphasize student learning and development?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How much did the
instructor emphasize
3.9 20 0.4 3.5 142 0.8 3.6 92160 0.7
student learning and
development?

Compared to other courses you've taken, how much time did this course require?

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
Compared to other
courses you've taken,
3.3 21 0.8 3.0 143 0.9 3.3 84599 1.0
how much time did this
course require?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 4/7


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

In a typical week, about how much time did you devote to this course? (Do not count
scheduled class time, labs, etc.)

Course Department. (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
In a typical week, about
how much time did you
devote to this course?
3.4 21 0.7 2.8 144 1.2 3.0 85006 1.4
(Do not count
scheduled class time,
labs, etc.)

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 5/7


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

HPSC Open Ended Questions

What did you like most about this course and instructor?

Comments
He is laid back and emphasizes the importance of class discussion in an unbiased way. His class was interesting and
unique. As a junior it was refreshing to take.
He was very positive
The course was set up differently than any other course I have taken before and I really enjoyed the complete
discussion aspect of the class. Nick is great!! Awesome at leading discussions and making students feel heard.
I liked the open and honest class discussions.
The discussion must have been my favorite part. Because all though discussion might have lulled in the slightest
professor zautra was able to keep it natural and flowing.
I liked the format more than I initiialy thought I would have, does a good job of envouraging discussion
Having discussions and going more in depth about topics.
Very organized and structured
The class was interesting. And I learned a lot.
I really like the active engagement of the course. I liked how we had a lot of discussion time to discuss different issues
that evolved throughout each film.
He was very passionate about the course and about keeping stimulating discussions going for us to learn from.
learning more about biomedical ethics
Variety of interesting topics
I liked how the class was different from your typical "read this textbook and listen to this lecture". I enjoyed watching the
movies and being able to develop my own ideas rather than just listen to others'.
I enjoyed class discussion.
I liked how our class handled debates and evaluated ethical dillemas from all perspectives.
He tries his best to keep the class enjoyable.
The structure of the class is very good.
Overal course is perfect and I really like it

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 6/7


Individual Report for HPSC X111 (LEC) 35665 ISSUES IN BIOL-MEDICAL ETHICS (Nicholas Gaddis Zautra)

What did you like least about this course and instructor?

Comments
Nothing. He was great.
Having to watch the movies outside of class
Only problem with the course is some of the movie times being 2+ hours because its very stressful to be sitting there
watching a movie for homework and wanting to pay attention in order to better discuss the film in class but you have all
this other homework you could be getting done in 2+ hours.
I didnt like how little time was given to complete the homework.
I did not like the due time of our papers because it caused me to rework my entire schedule which I found highly
inconvenient
It was quite hard to devote time for 2 movies a week due to a lot of other heavy load of course work.
The lack of class participation and the lack of really delving into sensitive issues
The attendance was pretty strict, but I can understand since it was an eight week class.
There wasn't anything I didn't like. Everything in this course was well explained and clarified through discussion.
Watching 2 Movies a week on top of everything else going on with school became very time consuming.
N/A
Readings were bland at times
I didn't like how there wasn't another option for people that felt uncomfortable watching some of the movies because
some of them were pretty explicit or inappropriate at times.
The amount of readings for each class.
How much time I had to spend out of class writing responses, though it was a relatively manageable amount.
He needs to release the next journal's reading right after the previous journal's discussion. Releasing it the day the
paper is due, was quite annoying.
None

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 7/7


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE
(Nicholas Zautra)
IUB Fall 2015 Online Course Questionnaire
Project Audience 12
Responses Received 10
Response Ratio 83.3%

Creation Date Fri, May 27, 2016


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

University Questions

How clearly were course learning goals and objectives communicated to you?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.2
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.7

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How clearly were course
learning goals and
3.2 10 0.8 3.3 114 0.8 3.4 109433 0.8
objectives communicated
to you?

How effectively was class time used to help you learn?

Statistics Value
Mean 2.9
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.7

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How effectively was class
time used to help you 2.9 10 0.7 3.1 114 0.8 3.2 108129 0.9
learn?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 2/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

How effectively did out-of-class work (assignments, readings, practice, etc.) help you
learn?

Statistics Value
Mean 2.5
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.5

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How effectively did out-of-
class work
(assignments, readings, 2.5 10 0.5 3.0 114 0.8 3.1 106691 0.9
practice, etc.) help you
learn?

How available was the instructor to provide help when needed (in person, by email,
office hours, etc.)?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.8
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.6

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How available was the
instructor to provide help
when needed (in person, 3.8 10 0.6 3.7 114 0.6 3.5 113765 0.7
by email, office hours,
etc.)?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 3/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

How likely would you be to recommend this course with this instructor?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.2
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.7

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How likely would you be
to recommend this
3.2 10 0.8 3.3 114 0.8 3.3 114100 1.0
course with this
instructor?

How much did the instructor motivate you to do your best work?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.5
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.7

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How much did the
instructor motivate you to 3.5 10 0.7 3.6 113 0.5 3.5 113393 0.8
do your best work?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 4/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

How much did the instructor emphasize student learning and development?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.9
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.3

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
How much did the
instructor emphasize
3.9 10 0.3 3.6 113 0.6 3.6 112397 0.7
student learning and
development?

Compared to other courses you've taken, how much time did this course require?

Statistics Value
Mean 3.0
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.9

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
Compared to other
courses you've taken,
3.0 10 0.9 3.0 113 0.8 3.3 108762 1.0
how much time did this
course require?

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 5/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

In a typical week, about how much time did you devote to this course? (Do not count
scheduled class time, labs, etc.)

Statistics Value
Mean 2.5
Population Standard Deviation +/-0.8

Course Department (HPSC) Institution


Question Response Standard Response Standard Response Standard
Mean Mean Mean
Count Deviation Count Deviation Count Deviation
In a typical week, about
how much time did you
devote to this course? 2.5 10 0.8 3.1 113 1.4 3.0 109093 1.4
(Do not count scheduled
class time, labs, etc.)

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 6/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

Departmental questions
Legend: SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; U = Undecided; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 7/8


Individual Report for X 100 4509 HUMAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE (Nicholas Zautra)

Departmental Open-Ended Questions

Departmental Questions-Comment for INSTRUCTOR 001

Comment
Very enthusiastic
The instructor did his best to make the topics accessible and relevant to students, thus making the class interesting
and enjoyable.

The instructor was an excellent communicator.


I liked that the learning objectives were presented before each class lecture. This help guide the lecture and show what
I should be learning about a particular topic.
I learned new perspectives on science that I had never thought of before.
Vibrant lecturing, entertaining, encourages class participation
Professor Zautra was always very approachable any time I had a problem in class. If someone didn't understand
something it was very easy to ask him for clarification. You never really felt stupid for asking questions or giving wrong
answers.
I liked how professor Zautra was always involved with the discussion rather than just standing in front of the class
lecturing. He did a very good job of presenting the information in a way that we could understand and have a discussion
about. The course material was very interesting and always captured my full attention in class.
Relatively light course load because of thought driven nature of course.
The interesting topic and class discussion.

Departmental Questions-Comment for INSTRUCTOR 002

Comment
Not very organized with time
This class began in a purely lecture format, and I feel that if discussions were included earlier along with lecture, I
would have gotten more or of the class.
I liked least that the notes were the same and little amounts of external videos and notes were used until later in the
class.
At the beginning of the semester, there was a lot of information about philosophy that did not relate to psychiatry. I also
did not like the textbook
Unclear homework problems
I felt like the textbook for this course was written for someone with more experience in philosophy than I had so at times
it was a bit hard to understand. Other than that I really enjoyed my time in this course.
The only thing that I did not like about the course was there were to many occasions where Professor Zautra would ask
a question to soon in the lecture and there would be no class response because nobody really had an answer yet.
I just really hate philosophy and history... Yes, I know that it is a philosophy class, I like psychiatry though, so I figured
that it would be OK. It wasn't. He was a really, really great teacher for the course, I just really don't understand
philosophy and don't like it. For the course he is great though, I hated it slightly less than usual.
Basically the format of the exams.

Copyright Indiana University Bloomington 8/8


Divyam Balani
402 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN. 46204
dbalani@sxdi.org

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

Members of the Review Committee

As an alumni of Indiana University and a student of Mr. Nicholas Zautra I am writing


to you in support of his nomination as a truly distinguished teacher. Mr. Zautra was
my teacher in the Animal Ethics class that I took in the spring semester of my senior
year in the year 2016. During that time, I had gotten to know him quite well and of
his unique abilities to bring out the very best in his students and can undoubtedly
vouch for his character.

Mr. Zautra was an amazing teacher and always cared for all students in his class. His
ability to empathize with all his students and realize when a student needed
personal attention and when they needed to step up in a leadership role was
something that set him apart from all the other teachers I’ve had the opportunity to
learn under. His way of teaching differed completely from the other teachers; what I
mean to say is that Mr. Zautra created an environment where speaking up was
encouraged. The mere notion that he was the one who spoke the least in the class
and allowed the class to create a conversation with one another while exchanging
ideas that usually stay suppressed is something that truly set him apart from all the
other teachers in my eyes.

Although it is widely accepted that the teacher knows best because they’re the ones
teaching the class, but having a very delicate topic such as Animal Ethics in our class
brought the best of his teaching out as he realized that sometimes the teacher can
also learn from the students and was always very reflective in his answers and
accepted that very openly.

The humility and the kindness I received from Mr. Zautra was unparalleled. Along
with the expertise in his field and the self-awareness that he has, I would say Mr.
Zautra has really taught me a lesson in the treatment of other people and
subsequently had a life-changing impact. I would definitely be a proud student if he
wins this award. If you have any further questions, feel free to email me at the
address above.

Best,
Divyam Balani
Members of the Review Committee,

My name is Tyler Moon and I am a former student of Professor Nicholas Zautra. I had

the good fortune to have the class Philosophy of Psychiatry with Professor Zautra for my first

semester here at Indiana University Bloomington. I greatly enjoyed having this class with

Professor Zautra, he was an exceptional teacher and I do feel that he would be a strong candidate

for IU’s Lieber Memorial Teaching Associate Award.

Philosophy of Psychiatry was my first philosophy class I had ever taken in my entire

academic career. I had never really learned anything about the field at all, yet despite my total

lack of knowledge in the subject Professor Zautra still managed to make even the more complex

material easy to learn and engaging. The ideas of philosophy had not really interested me at all

before going into this class, I didn’t believe they applied to anything that I was doing with my

life. Professor Zautra showed me that this wasn’t really the case. He showed me the applications

philosophy had to fields of science; how science doesn’t necessarily always have the answers

and sometimes the answers it does have aren’t necessarily the right ones. Being a biology pre-

med student who will essentially be working with nothing but science for the rest of my life, this

really changed the way I view the world and these are lessons I’ll take with me for the rest of my

life. Professor Zautra also managed to present the material in a way that was very

comprehensive, but also approachable. Much of the philosophical material we covered looked at

the world in a very macrocosmic non-specific way, but Professor Zautra always found a way to

relate it to day-to-day events that we, as students, personally experienced. This made much of the

material far easier to understand and really made it stick for me, something material like this

typically doesn’t do.


One of the things I most enjoyed about Professor Zautra’s class, though, was his teaching

style. Philosophy of psychiatry was the only class that I ever took with him and the only class I

know of him teaching, but I don’t believe this limited amount of teaching in any way hindered

him. Professor Zautra being a recent student made it seem like he really understood the struggles

the class went through as students and made him more accessible and approachable as a result.

Professor Zautra’s course was very technology-centered, which made the course very accessible.

Any time a student missed class the presentations and notes were available to look at so no one

ever felt like they were falling behind. Professor Zautra was also very quick to respond to emails

with any questions or issues students had for class. While much of the class was centered on

technology, Professor Zautra also made sure to engage students. Professor Zautra knew every

students’ name within the first few classes and always made a point to ask what we thought

about a subject or how a philosophical concept made us feel. He would also ask us to come up

with how concepts like these could be applied to our daily life and, when possible, would give us

entire classes just to discuss what we thought about different philosophical ideals in a class-based

discussion. In addition to getting us to develop and share our own ideas about these topics,

Professor Zautra always tried to do the same with his own ideas. When presenting his ideas and

opinions, he always told us that his answer was not necessarily the most or absolutely right

answer, but that this was how he interpreted meaning. It greatly helped our learning, presenting

another perspective, but also allowed us to form our own ideas on subjects. I hope to use these

techniques Professor Zautra used for the rest of my life. He showed us that leading a discussion

doesn’t mean dominating it, nor does it mean you are the one with the only right answers.

While Professor Zautra is relatively new to the teaching world, this in no way limited him

in his teaching ability. Professor Zautra made me understand and enjoy material I otherwise
never would have approached. He was always available when students needed him and seemed

to genuinely enjoy teaching us. He was an amazing professor and I’m very happy I had the

chance to learn from him. In my opinion, he is definitely worthy of receiving an award such as

the Lieber Memorial Teaching Associate Award.

Sincerely,

Tyler Moon
Dear Members of the Review Committee,

I have known Nick for about two years. He was my instructor in COGS-Q 240, an
intensive writing course on the philosophical foundations of cognitive science. But before we get
to that, let me explain something first. I don’t like school. I don’t like classrooms. Heck, I’m not
particularly fond of teachers. Around campus, I’m what’s called a “non-traditional” student. I
started college at thirty-one years old. I dropped-out of high school at eighteen to earn money
and support myself. I didn’t miss it, and I never thought I’d go back. I met Professor Zautra the
first day of my second year at Indiana University. By that time I had gotten my bearings, and had
encountered enough instructors to form a general idea of how things go. Broadly speaking,
nothing much about the classwork in Q240 stands out amid the clutter of dozens of other
alphanumerically designated courses. But it isn’t the material that makes an outstanding teacher.

So let me tell you what I think about Nick. He is intelligent and quirky, a knowledgeable
and approachable instructor, a stand-up guy, and a stand-up comedian (seriously). Even though I
was taking a full course load while working 3rd shift at a grocery store, all night, every night
before coming to his class, somehow I always looked forward to it. As I am a Cognitive Science
Major, it’s not surprising that I was interested in the subject being taught. But let’s not
exaggerate the effect that has on student engagement. What made this class different was the way
Nick took extra effort to get to know, and to befriend each of his students. And he didn’t treat his
students like students. That is, he recognizes everyone has certain aptitudes and talents, and he
gave the impression we were not so much a class, but rather a club of peers. Considering that I
am older than Nick, this meant a great deal to me. He was always willing to hear me out, no
matter how tangential or obscure my comments may have been. And this was true for all his
students. Despite his patience, he was never short on guidance. The class stayed on course as he
blended the style and substance of the texts we were reading with that of the papers we were
writing. This friendly and effective manner that was both fun and challenging, cooperative and
personal, helped me feel that my experiment with higher education was not hopeless or vain; and
that the experience could be rewarding in and of itself, not just a stepping stone to a better job,
years in the future.

What I can’t stress enough here, is that now, and even more so then, there was no
guarantee I would want to, or be able to, complete my degree(s) at IU. I had been working and
supporting myself for sixteen years before setting foot on campus. I can take care of myself
without further education. I’m a narcissistic, autodidactic dilettante/polymath. I am not easy to
teach. I have experienced conflicts with other instructors. I know that some classes will be
neither enjoyable nor even edifying. But when I walked into Nick’s class, I felt relaxed and
excited to learn. He was always ready to hear different, or even opposing, opinions about the
material. He challenged my understanding of the concepts, without trying to impose or enforce
his own ideas on others. He brought a sense of humor to his lectures, but was never distracting or
off-topic. And therefore, he was appreciative of my unorthodox style of writing and speaking,
but always held me to the rubric of the assignment. He showed me that classes may be a
requirement, but can also be a pleasure. As an instructor, he appeared at the right time in my
academic career to encourage me to keep moving forward. Despite that I’m something of a
know-it-all, Nick taught me that I still have a lot to learn; about cognitive science, and also about
being a good person. Which I think is the definition of an outstanding teacher.

Sincerely,

Robert Napier
To#Whom#It#May#Concern,#
#
My name is Elijah Pouges, and I am a junior at Indiana University –
Bloomington. I had the pleasure of having Nick as an instructor my freshman year at
Indiana University. The course was titled “Philosophy of Satire,” and by far has been one
of my favorite courses during my undergraduate experience. It was in this course that I
learned all about the merit of satire, its historical implications, and how it is used in
modern society to critique social institutions. It was also in this course, with Nick’s
guidance, that I became a better writer and developed a more critical eye for the
publications that I subscribe to.
In the course, we analyzed satirical works from several mediums including film
and print (i.e Monty Python films, The Onion). On a weekly basis, we would study
different satirical cartoons, the historical moments they captured, and create our own
captions to fit the cartoon. It was truly test of wit. My favorite part, by far, was the
creation of our final project. In a group of four people, we wrote a screenplay,
accompanied by a short film, satirizing the social network “Tinder,” and it’s supposed
superficiality.
The class was fun, informative, and exciting. As an instructor, Nick gave us
lectures that were relevant and engaging. As a presenter, he was always energetic – he
truly displayed the energy he wanted us to reciprocate with our work. If he were to teach
this class again, I would recommend it for any freshman coming in to my institution.
They will undoubtedly become better writers, more critical thinkers, and noticeably more
witty greatly due to a great instructor.

Sincerely,

Elijah Pouges
HPSC-X111: Ethical Issues in Biological and Medical Sciences (Spring 2018)
TOPIC: “Medical Ethics and the Movies”

Nicholas Zautra, History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine


Tuesday/Thursday 8:30AM - 10:30AM
Global and International Studies (GA) 1100

Email: nzautra@indiana.edu
Office Hours: 11:00AM - 12:00PM Tuesday/Thursday, and by appointment.

Course Overview: This seminar considers major debates in bioethics in light of recent
scholarship in medical humanities, disability studies, and gender studies, drawing on
perspectives from philosophy, history, literature, sociology, and film.

From the question of informed consent to the very recent debates about genetic engineering,
this course examines some of the most important social questions of our time: Should we
experiment on human beings? Is there a difference between biomedical enhancement and
eugenics? How can we alleviate health disparities, particularly those exacerbated by the history
of medical experimentation and racial injustice? Should parents be able to go to any lengths to
try experimental treatments for their sick child? Whose authority should prevail in medical
decision making: the patient’s or the physician’s?

In analyzing the legal, moral, and philosophical debates that shape current public discourse, this
course invites students to approach complex moral issues through the lens of both popular
culture and scholarly analysis. Using selected films as well as readings and discussion, we will
explore moral and social concerns from a variety of perspectives. We will approach the weekly
films with these questions in mind: How is the issue under consideration being presented to a
mass audience? How might the film’s presentation differ from or adhere to more scholarly
bioethical considerations?

Watching the films will be part of your homework. Each week you will be expected to view the
required film(s) and read the assigned material before our class meeting. All films will be
available on Netflix, HBO GO, Amazon, YouTube, etc. Some films are free to stream; otherwise
may have a small fee to rent ($2.99). You are welcome (and encouraged!) to watch these films
together with your classmates.

Class participation: This class will require active and sustained class participation, with open
and honest discussion. We will be covering material that may challenge your beliefs, values, or
conventional wisdom more generally. While you may not agree with everything said, you owe it
to each other to listen carefully and respectfully to other people’s views.

Attendance: Because this will be a discussion-oriented class, you have to be here to


benefit. I cannot recreate the class discussion for you if you have to miss class. Absences
(as well as arriving late or leaving early) will negatively affect your final grade. Beginning
Tuesday, March 20th, if you miss more than one class, your grade will be lowered by one letter
grade.

Rules: No computers, iPads, etc. are allowed in the class unless we are looking at the reading
together. Please no texting either.

Academic Integrity: All work completed for this class must be your own. If you cheat (hand in
your friend's work or copy directly from the internet or a book, etc.) you will (at the very least) fail
the class and your name will be registered with the University. For the full IU policy on
plagiarism: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/definition.html Still not sure? Take this self-test:
http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/

Students with Disabilities: I will make every effort to accommodate students with disabilities. If
you have a documented disability and anticipate needing accommodations in this course,
please make arrangements to meet with me as soon as possible. Please request that the
Counselor for Students with Disabilities send a letter verifying your disability.

Weekly Journals: Weekly journals should be uploaded to Canvas under Assignments the night
before at 11:00 PM. There are 13 weeks of Journal submissions, but you can take one week off
(of writing, not reading!) Your journals should discuss how the film deals with the ethical issues
presented in the reading. Late journals will not be accepted.

If you do a beautiful job, incorporate all the reading, and thoroughly contemplate and address
the study questions, you will get full credit. If you complete all the journal entries and receive full
credit, you will get an A on this part of the course. If you only submit and get credit for 11 you
will receive an A- for this part of the course; 10, a B+; 9, a B; 8, a B-; 7 a C+, 6 a C and less
than that a D or lower. If you submit fewer than 5, you will not pass the class at all.

The quality of the submission counts too! In other words, this is your opportunity to grapple with
the readings, to question, to connect one week to the next, and to raise issues that you’d like to
see discussed in class. The journals aren’t formally graded, but I still want complete sentences,
though you don’t have to worry about making an argument, having smooth transitions, and the
like. If you only write about one of the readings or you write about your opinions with no
reference to the readings at all, you won't get credit that week (though I may award partial
credit.) I don’t have a page limit, but I expect you’ll submit roughly 500-750 words. More is fine.

Film Presentation: Each class period, two students will choose a 4-minute clip from the film for
that day to jumpstart our class discussion. You should choose a scene that best illuminates the
central ethical dilemma in the film and prepare five questions for group discussion in class.

Quizzes: To encourage your active engagement with the films and their associated readings, a
short quiz will be administered at the beginning of each class period. The lowest two quizzes will
be dropped.
Grades:

Weekly journal responses: 600 points (60%)


Attendance and Participation: 200 points (20%)
Quizzes: 100 points (10%)
Film Presentation: 100 points (10%)

Total points possible: 1000

****************************************

WEEK 1

March 6th: Course Introduction


● Read E. Boetzkes & W.J. Waluchow, “Ethical Resources for Decisions-Making,” pp. 3-35
for Thursday, March 8th.

March 8th: The Birth of Medical Ethics


Film (In-class viewing): Frankenstein (1931)

WEEK 2

March 13th: Spring Break (No Class)


March 15th: Spring Break (No Class)

WEEK 3

March 20th: Doctor/Patient Relationships


Film: The Doctor (1991)
● Charles D. Aring, “Sympathy and Empathy,” JAMA, May 24, 1958, pp. 448-452

March 22nd: Research, Patient Care, and End of Life


Film: Wit (2001)
● Chapter 2: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 1-26

WEEK 4

March 27th: Genetic Engineering


Film: Gattaca (1997)
● No Gene for Fate? Luck, Harm and Justice in Gattaca (2009): 75-86

March 29th: Abortion - *NO CLASS*


Film: Citizen Ruth (1996)
● Reading Citizen Ruth her rights: Satire and Moral Realism in the Abortion Debate
(2009): 32-43

WEEK 5

April 3rd: Organ Transplantation


Film: Dirty Pretty Things (2002)
● Commodification, Exploitation, and the Market for Transplant Organs: A Discussion of
Dirty Pretty Things, 170-184

April 5th: Euthanasia, Disability, and Death


Film: Million Dollar Baby (2004)
● False Images: Re-Framing the End-of-Life Portrayal of Disability in the Film
Million Dollar Baby

WEEK 6

April 10th: Mental Illness: Consent, Competence, Capacity


Film: A Beautiful Mind (2001)
● P.S. Applebaum, “Assessment of Patients’ Competence to Consent to Treatment,” New
England Journal of Medicine 357 (2007): 1834-1840

April 12th: Football, Concussions, and NFL Doctors


Film: Concussion (2013)
● Glenn Cohen, Holly Fernandez Lynch, and Christopher Deubert, "A Proposal to Address
NFL Club Doctors' Conflicts of Interest and to Promote Players' Trust"

WEEK 7

April 17th: Teenage Sexuality, Ethics, and the Law


Film: Kids (1995)
● Laurie Abraham, “Teaching Good Sex,” The New York Times (Nov. 21, 2011)

April 19th: Sex, Gender, Intersex, and Transgender


Film: XXY (2001)
● Chapter from Georgiann Davis, Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis (2015)

WEEK 8

April 24th: The Medicalization of Female Sexuality


Film: Orgasm Inc. (2009)

April 26th: Ethics and Culture


Film: Ikiru (1952)
● Ikiru and Net-Casting in Intercultural Bioethics, 345-366

Acknowledgements: This course was originally designed and taught in spring 2017 by
Elizabeth Reis, Professor at Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York. I have
followed her syllabus closely. I have borrowed liberally from other courses as well, as taught by
instructors Tom Beauchamp, Jon Keown, Rebecca Kukla, Margartet Little, Madison Powers,
Karen Stohr, and Robert M. Veatch at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University.
Animal Research Ethics – HPS-X 100 Spring 2016
MWF, 12:20 PM - 1:10 PM, Sycamore 002
Instructor
Nicholas Zautra
History and Philosophy of Science
College of Arts and Sciences
Indiana University Bloomington

Primary Contact
Nicholas Zautra
1020 Kirkwood Ave.
Ballentine Hall
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: nzautra@indiana.edu
Office hours: by appointment

Course Description:
This course will explore historical, philosophical, and ethical dimensions of research
with nonhuman animals. We will describe and critically assess the rationale for and
limits of laboratory animal experimentation in biology, engineering, and biomedicine. We
will also explore the ethical issues raised by ecological field research involving wild
animals. Much of this discussion focuses on resolving philosophical and practical
conflicts between the suffering of non-human animals and the well-being of humans,
and between individualistic treatments of animal welfare and more holistic concerns
about the health of populations, species, and ecological systems. This course should be
of interest to undergraduate students in the life sciences and engineering who conduct
basic and/or applied research with nonhuman animals, students studying the history
and philosophy of science, ethics, policy, and law, as well as those students with a
general interest in our cultural, ethical, biological, and historical relationships with
nonhuman animals.

Course Objective
By the end of the course, students should have a broad foundational knowledge of the
history, philosophy, and major concepts in animal research ethics, and be able to come
to their own well-reasoned personal opinions about the issues in question.

Attendance/Class Participation Policy: Classes will involve a great deal of


participation. Thus, student participation and attendance is expected. You are expected
to have read the assignments and be ready to discuss the material in depth. Your
overall grade for the course will be lowered by a half letter grade for every unexcused
absence you have beyond three absences.

Required Text:

1. Guerrini, Anita. Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal
rights. JHU Press, 2003.
2. Stanlick, Nancy A., and Michael J. Strawser. Asking Good Questions: Case
Studies in Ethics and Critical Thinking. Hackett Publishing, 2015.

Assignments: This course will involve several different kinds of assignments. The
goals for students in completing these assignments are the following:

1. To demonstrate an understanding of the ethical dimensions of animal research


and the impact of historical events that shaped its development.
2. To demonstrate knowledge of major ethical concepts and theories and use these
concepts and theories where applicable to examine and interpret interdisciplinary
cases raising significant ethical issues.
3. To apply creative problem-solving strategies.
4. To engage actively in ethical dialogues by critically discussing and evaluating
moral issues.
5. To articulate effectively, argue persuasively, and think critically about moral
judgments.
6. To demonstrate the ability to work towards a consensus in making ethical
decisions and show an appreciation of the challenges and complexities of
arriving at such decisions
7. To develop skills in research and written and verbal expression.
8. To take responsibility for and ownership of your own personal ethical
development.

Points Breakdown of Assignments

Office Hours Visit 25 Points


Homework Exercises 300 Points
Midterm Exam 200 Points
Ethics Bowl Case Study 250 Points
Ethics Bowl Competition 250 Points

Office Hours Visit (2.5%): Your first assignment will be to schedule an initial 10-minute
visit with your course instructor. This visit, which will take place during the first two
weeks of class will be an informal conversation primarily designed to allow one-on-one
face time between you and the instructor, a sort of “get-to-know-you.” This visit will also
serve to let you know where office hours will be held, and to allow you to ask any
questions you have regarding the course.

Homework Exercises (30%): Several homework exercises will be assigned throughout


the duration of the course. Each homework exercise will typically include responding to
several questions related to the assigned readings.

Midterm Exam (20%): The midterm exam will cover topics in the required text from first
half of the course.

Ethics Bowl Case Preparation (25%): The readings, homework exercises, and
midterm exam are designed to prepare you for the final class project: an ethics bowl
competition.

An ethics bowl competition combines the excitement and fun of a competitive


tournament with an innovative approach to education in practical and professional
ethics for undergraduate students. Recognized widely by educators, ethics bowls have
received special commendation for excellence and innovation from the American
Philosophical Association, and received the 2006 American Philosophical
Association/Philosophy Documentation Center’s 2006 prize for Excellence and
Innovation in Philosophy Programs. The format, rules, and procedures of an ethics bowl
all have been developed to model widely acknowledged best methods of reasoning in
practical and professional ethics.
In an ethics bowl, each team receives a set of cases which raise issues in practical and
professional ethics in advance of the competition and prepare an analysis of each case.
At the competition, a moderator poses questions, based on a case taken from that set,
to teams of students. Questions may concern ethical problems on wide ranging topics
such as the classroom (e.g. cheating or plagiarism), personal relationships (e.g. dating
or friendship), professional ethics (e.g. engineering, law, medicine), or social and
political ethics (e.g. free speech, gun control, etc.); questions for this course will focus
on animal experimentation. Judges may probe the teams for further justifications and
evaluates answers. Rating criteria are intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant
considerations, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness.
Your ethics bowl case preparations will be formal write-ups in response to particular
cases assigned to you and your team at the midpoint of the semester.

Ethics Bowl Competition (25%): Your ethics bowl competition will take place during
the final week of class. Your performance will be evaluated according to the 2015-2016
Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Judges Guidelines.
Course Schedule:

Reading
Date Topic Assignments, etc.
Assignments
Week 1: Introduction to the History and Philosophy and Psychiatry
Jan 11 Organization and Overview
Jan 13 Ethical Resources for Ethical
Decision-Making Resources
for Decision-
Making, 3-11
Jan 15 Ethical Resources for Ethical
Decision-Making Resources
for Decision-
Making, 12-
33
Week 2: History of Animal Experimentation
Jan 18 MLK Day No Class No Class
Jan 20 Experimentation and Guirrini,
Philosophical Debate in Pre- Introduction,
modern Europe Chapter 1
Jan 22 Animals, Machines, and Guirrini, Homework 1 Due
Morals Chapter 2
Week 3: History of Animal Experimentation
Jan 25 Disrupting God’s Plan Guirrini,
Chapter 3
Jan 27 Cruelty and Kindness Guirrini,
Chapter 4
Jan 29 The Microbe Hunters Guirrini, Homework 2 Due
Chapter 5
Week 4: History of Animal Experimentation
Feb 1 Polio and Primates Guirrini,
Chapter 6
Feb 3 Human Rights, Animal Guirrini,
Rights, and the Conduct of Conclusion
Science
Feb 5 Animal Models in Biomedical Lafollete, Homework 3 Due
Experimentation 796-821
Week 5: Philosophical Foundations
Feb 8 All Animals are Created Singer, 73-
Equal 86
Feb 10 The Case for Animal Rights Regan, 19-
25
Feb 12 Of Mice and Men: A Feminist Mackinnon, Homework 4 Due
Fragment on Animal Rights 263-273
Week 6: Animal Welfare, Environmental Ethics, and Political Theory
Feb 15 Animal Liberation: A Calicott, 311-
Triangular Affair 338
Feb 17 Animal Liberation is an Jamieson,
Environmental Ethic 197-212
Feb 19 Zoopolis: A Political Renewal Bailey, 1-12 Homework 5 Due
of Animal Rights Theories
Week 7: Animal Research Regulation: IACUC 101
Feb 22 Use of Animals in Fuchs and
Biomedical Experimentation Macrina,
135-147
Feb 24 Ethical Themes of National Orlans, 131-
Regulations Governing 146
Animal Experiments
Feb 26 What’s Ethics Got to Do With Kahn, 919- Homework 6 Due
It? The Roles of Government 929
Regulation in Research-
Animal Protection
Week 8: Animal Research Regulation: IACUC: Current Issues
Feb 29 The Interpretation and Schupplie
Application of the Three Rs and Faser,
by Animal Ethics Committee 487-498
Members
Mar 2 Euthanasia; Alleviating Pain AVMA Guest Speaker
and Distress in Non-Human Guidelines
Animals for
Euthanasia
(skim); AALS
Mar 4 Drawing Lines Rachels, Homework 7 Due
162-174
Week 9: The Future of Animal Research
Mar 7 Genetically Modified Savulescu,
Animals: Should there be 641-665
Limits to Engineering the
Animal Kingdom?
Mar 9 Expanding the Three Rs to Schuppli et
Meet New Challenges in al., 525-530
Humane Animal
Experimentation
Mar 11 MIDTERM EXAM MIDTERM EXAM
Week 10: SPRING BREAK
Mar No Class No Class No Class
13-20
Week 11: Theoretical and Logical Tools for Ethical Case Study
Mar 21 Introduction: From Good Stanlick &
Questions to Questioning the Strawser, 1-
Good 41
Mar 23 Logic and Persuasion Stanlick &
Strawser,
45-72
Mar 25 Theoretical and Logical Review Homework 8 Due
Tools in Practice Stanlick &
Strawser
Chapters 1 &
2
Week 12: Cases and Concept Mapping
Mar 28 Conceptualizing Ethical Stanlick &
Cases Strawser,
77-95
Mar 30 Questioning Cases and Stanlick &
Mapping Concepts Strawser,
98-116
Apr 1 Concept Mapping Cases of Review Homework 9 Due
Animal Experimentation Stanlick &
Strawer,
Chapters 3 &
4
Week 13: Creative Case Analysis
Apr 4 Creative Case Analysis Stanlick &
Strawser,
119-143
Apr 6 Applying Ethical Theories Stanlick &
Strawser,
147-163
Apr 8 Conclusion: Answering Stanlick & Homework 10 Due
Questions and Solving Strawser,
Problems 163-182
Week 14: Cases in Animal Research Ethics
Apr 11 Cases in Animal Research Cases in Ethics Bowl teams
Ethics Animal announced; Cases
Research assigned to students
(Canvas)
Apr 13 Cases in Animal Research Cases in
Animal
Research
(Canvas)
Apr 15 Cases in Animal Research Cases in
(cont’d) Animal
Research
(Canvas)
Week 15: Individual Presentations on Facts and Issues in Cases
Apr 18 Individual Presentations &
Replies
Apr 20 Individual Presentations &
Replies
Apr 22 Individual Presentations &
Replies
Week 16: Ethics Bowl Practice
Apr 25 Ethics Bowl Practice
Apr 27 Ethics Bowl Practice
Apr 29 Course-Wrap Up: What have Last day of class; Ethics
we learned? Bowl Case Study Due
Week 17: Finals Week
May 2- Ethics Bowl Competition Ethical Bowl
6 Competition:
Wednesday, May 4th,
12:30-2:30PM

Emotional concerns: Discussing controversial issues connected with animal


research can bring up powerful emotions. So it is important that the classroom be
a safe and supportive space for everyone in it. If at any point during class you do
experience overwhelming emotions, then you are quite free to leave and take
some time for yourself. Please let me know either when you leave the classroom
or afterwards.

Academic and Personal Problems. If you have problems that cause you to be
late with work or to miss a number of classes, please stay in communication by
phone, email, or by meeting with me in person. I will be willing to work with you
and sort out a way for you to still stay in the class and get a fair grade. If you
miss a number of classes or fail to hand in work on time but don't give me any
explanation then you risk failing the class.
 
Plagiarism: The Indiana University Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and
Conduct (2005) indicate that students may be disciplined for several different
kinds of academic misconduct. In particular the code states: Plagiarism is defined
as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other students, as
one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either written or
oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is common
knowledge. What is considered 'common knowledge' may differ from course to
course. a. A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, opinions, theories,
formulas, graphics, or pictures of another person without acknowledgment. b. A
student must give credit to the originality of others and acknowledge an
indebtedness whenever: 1. Directly quoting another person’s actual words,
whether oral or written; 2. Using another person’s ideas, opinions, or theories; 3.
Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or
written; 4. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; or 5. Offering
materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections
without acknowledgment." (quoted from Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities,
and Conduct, Part II, Student Responsibilities, Academic Misconduct)

For the full IU policy on plagiarism: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/definition.html


Not sure? Take this self-test: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/
Statement for Students with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute
that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities.
Among other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be
guaranteed a learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation
of their disabilities. If you believe you have a disability requiring an
accommodation, please contact IU Disability Services for Students.
Philosophical Foundations of Cognitive Science
COGS Q240 | Spring 2015
Meeting Times
All meetings are in Rose Ave
Resident Hall (RA) B109
Main lectures, Mo-We 9:30-
10:45
Discussion section, Fr 12:20-
1:10
Instructor
Nicholas Zautra
Department of History and
Philosophy of Science
Email: nzautra@indiana.edu
Office hours: by appointment

Associate Instructor
Joseph Adams
Cognitive Science Program
Email: adamsjo@indiana.edu

Subject Matter
Cognitive Science emerged about 60 years ago from developments in philosophy,
computer science, psychology, and linguistics. Central to this emergence were new
ideas about how minds could be understood in computational terms: the computational
theory of mind. The belief that intelligence could be understood in terms of physical
processing of symbolic representations served to unite artificial intelligence and
cognitive psychology under a common philosophical framework, and it was believed
that computers with human-level capacities would be rapidly achieved. Progress in
artificial intelligence, however, has been much slower than anticipated, and
developments in neuroscience, in artificial neural networks, and in dynamical and
evolutionary approaches to cognition and robotics, have caused some to question
whether cognitive science should remain committed to the computational theory of
mind.

Course Description
In this course, students will learn about the original promise of the computational theory,
and how it provided an alternative to earlier philosophical and scientific views about the
relationship between mind and body. We will go on to consider the debate about
whether evolutionary, embodied, and dynamical systems approaches to cognitive
science amount to an overthrow of its traditional symbolic-representationalist core as
well as providing a philosophical challenge to our deep-seated conception of ourselves
as human agents with rational beliefs.

Course Objective
By the end of the course, students will be able to to evaluate and respond to
philosophical arguments in cognitive science.

Attendance/Class Participation Policy: Classes will involve a great deal of


participation. Thus, student participation and attendance is expected. You are expected
to have read the assignments and be ready to discuss the material in depth. Your
overall grade for the course will be lowered by a half letter grade for every unexcused
absence you have beyond three absences.

Assignments and Grading


This course is designated Intensive Writing (IW), which according to the faculty
handbook means, “students must be required to write “at least 5,000 words (roughly
20 typed pages), not counting revisions (and excluding essay examinations and
informal writing, e.g., journals or brief response statements). Students must receive
periodic evaluations of their writing, and they must be required to redraft one or more
papers in light of the instructor’s criticism. Ordinarily students will write a series of
papers over the course of a semester, not one long term paper.”
There are no scheduled examinations, but there are six formal pieces of writing
required, and these will be extensively workshopped during discussion sections.
Discussion sections may also be used to clarify and extend the discussion of course
concepts.

 IW assignments, specified in greater detail below are due by midnight on the


dates specified in the table below. All must be submitted via Oncourse.
Acceptable formats are pdf, rtf, .doc, and .docx.
 All submissions should be double-spaced, 1-inch margins, and font size 10-12
points. Include a word count with your document.
 All sources must be cited in an acceptable format (APA preferred). Also, if you
are unsure about what counts as plagiarism, take this tutorial and self-test.
 Late submissions will incur a grade penalty of 1 point per 24 hrs. The writing
assignments are tightly integrated with the main lecture content and the topics
may not be fully covered in the readings alone, so attendance at all three
meetings each week is important.
 Occasional classroom activities or pop quizzes on readings may be used without
warning to determine attendance and participation.

70% for the IW assignments, distributed as follows:


IW-1, due 01/30, 5%
IW-2, due 02/20, 10%
IW-3, due 03/13, 10%
IW-4, due 04/10, 15%
IW-5, due 04/24, 10%
IW-6, due 05/08, 20%
20% for initial office hours visit, responses to readings, including in-class assignments
which may not be announced in advance.
5% for mandatory meetings with IUB Writing Tutorial Services
5% for participation in discussions during class lecture and discussion periods.

Texts
For the discussion sections, there is one short required textbook. It is Lewis Vaughn’s
Writing Philosophy: A Student’s Guide to Writing Philosophy Essays.
For the main lecture sections, there are roughly two required readings per week. The
schedule below references the required readings. All required readings will be made
freely available via Oncourse.
The schedule also contains references to a textbook that covers some of the course
material, and is recommended reading. It is Andy Clark's Mindware 2nd Edition,
Oxford Univ. Press.
Schedule
Date Topic Readings Assignment details
Week 1 Course Intro
01/12 Philosophy, movie shown in class
Science, and the
Philosophy of
Science
01/14 What is (Philosophy Paul Thagard’s SEP Article available here:
of) Cognitive article on “Cognitive
Science? Science” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-
[Mindware Preface, science/
Chapter 1, Appendix 1]
01/16 IW requirements Vaughn, Chapter 1. Bring questions
and strategies
Week 2
01/19 MLK Day No Class
01/21 Physical Symbols Allen Newell & Herbert
System Hypothesis Simon (1975)
“Computer Science as
empirical enquiry:
symbols and search”
[Mindware 2.1]
01/23 Brainstorm IW-1 Vaughn, Chapter 2. Monty Python's argument clinic
CA's guide to writing
philosophy papers
Week 3
01/26 Chinese Room John Searle (1980)
“Minds, Brains, and
Programs”
[Mindware 2.2]
01/28 The Turing Test Alan Turing (1950) Try out at least one of the Turing
“Computing Machinery Machine simulators linked at
& Intelligence” Wikipedia and SEP.
01/30 Workshop IW-1 Vaughn, Chapter 3. *IW-1 DUE*
Week 4 Dualism, or...?
02/02 Rationalists and Rene Descartes (1641)
Empiricists Meditations 1 and 2
David Hume (1777)
Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding
sections 2 and 3 (skip
sections 1, 4, and 5)
[Mindware 3]

02/04 Metaphors for Mind Edward Tolman (1948)


I: Maps and Images “Cognitive maps in rats
in men”
Roger Shepard &
Jacqueline Metzler
(1971) “Mental rotation
of three-dimensional
objects”
02/06 Knowing your Vaughn, Chapter 4 Research age-appropriate vocabulary
audience lists/tools for 12 yr olds.
Week 5 Functionalism
02/09 Functionalism Janet Levin’s SEP entry
on “Functionalism”
02/11 More functionalism review SEP article
02/13 IW-2 Analogy Vaughn, Chapter 5 Bring your "2nd best" ideas
Brainstorming
Week 6 Rationalism v.
Empiricism Redux
02/16 Chomsky v. Skinner Noam Chomsky
(1959/1967) “Review of
B.F. Skinner’s Verbal
Behavior”
02/18 The Place of Folk Daniel Dennett (1981)
Psychology “True believers”
02/20 Workshop IW-2 Vaughn, Chapter 6 *IW-2 DUE*
Week 7 Connectionism
02/23 Intro to Jim Garson’s SEP entry
connectionism on “Connectionism”
[Mindware 4]
02/25 Eliminativism William Ramsey,
Stephen Stich, &
Joseph Garon (1991)
“Connectionism,
eliminativism, and the
future of folk
psychology”
02/27 Workshop papers
Week 8 Levels of
Explanation
03/02 Marr's 3 levels Marr (1980) selection
from Vision
03/04 Multiple Realization Figdor (2010)
“Neuroscience and the
Multiple Realization of
Cognitive Functions”
03/06 Workshop papers Vaughn, Chapter 7 Schedule appoint with IUB Writing
Tutorial Services
Week 9 Evolution and Mind
03/09 Evolution and Ruth Millikan (1980)
Content “Compare and Contrast
Dretske, Fodor, and
Millikan on
Teleosemantics”
03/11 Robots Inman Harvey et al.
(2005) “Evolutionary
Robotics: A new
scientific tool for
studying cognition”
[Mindware 6]
03/13 Workshop papers Vaughn, Chapter 8 *IW-3 DUE*

Week 10 SPRING BREAK SPRING BREAK SPRING BREAK

Week 11 Embodied Cognition


03/23 More robots Rodney Brooks (1991)
“Intelligence without
representation”
[Mindware 5,6]
03/25 Embodiment Andy Clark (1998)
“Embodiment and the
Philosophy of Mind”
03/27 Brainstorm IW-4 Schedule appoint with IUB Writing
Tutorial Services
Week 12 Dynamical Systems
03/30 Dynamical Systems Beer (2000) “Dynamical
approaches to cognitive
science”
[Mindware 7]
04/01 Dynamical Timothy van Gelder
Philosophy (1995) “What might
cognition be if not
computation?”
04/03 tba tba
Week 13 Mind Beyond Body
04/06 Extended Mind Andy Clark and David
Chalmers (1998) “The
Extended Mind”
[Mindware 8]
04/08 Enaction Marek McGann, Hanne
De Jaegher, Ezequiel di
Paolo (2013) “Enaction
and Psychology
[Mindware 9]
04/10 Workshop IW-4 *IW-4 DUE*
Week 14 Charting the
Revolution
04/13 Group Mind Georg Theiner, Colin
Allen and Rob
Goldstone (2010)
“Recognizing Group
Cognition”
04/15 Philosophy of Tony Chemero and
Cognitive Science Michael Silberstein
vs. Philosophy of (2008) “After philosophy
Mind of mind: replacing
scholasticism with
science”
04/17 BRAINSTORM IW-
5
Week 15 The Conservative
View
04/20 The conservative Rob Rupert (2013)
view “Memory, natural kinds,
and cognitive
extension”
04/22 The conservative Rupert (forthcoming)
view (continued) “Against group cognitive
states”
04/24 Workshop IW-5 *IW-5 DUE*
Week 16 Theories of
Theories of mind
04/27 Theory-Theory vs. Gallese and Goldman
Simulation Theory (1998) “Mirror Neurons
and the Simulation
Theory of Mind-
Reading”
04/29 Animal Cognition Call and Tomasello
(2008) “Does the
Chimpanzee have a
theory of mind? 30
years later”
05/01 Workshop IW-6 Bring paper drafts Last day of class
Week 16 Finals Week No classes
05//08 *IW-6 DUE*

IW Assignments

IW-1. Choose one of the "-isms" – e.g., rationalism, dualism, or behaviorism -- that has
been discussed in lectures or readings, then (a) explain what it means and (b)
summarize the main arguments for and against it.

 Due 01/30.
 The audience for this paper is a friend or acquaintance who has not taken this
course. Do not be overly casual in your writing, but do focus on being clear,
concise, and accessible. Briefly explain any technical terms and avoid
unexplained jargon.
 You are not expected to consult any sources beyond what we have covered in
class, but you are welcome to do so if you would like. Just make sure that you
cite any sources that you refer to in your writing.
 A good secondary source for many of the topics we will cover this semester is
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For this paper, the most relevant
entries would be the SEP entry on dualism and behaviorism. You may also find
related items at the InPhO page for Cognitive Science.
 If you do consult other sources, keep in mind that the terms "dualism",
"behaviorism", "functionalism", and "materialism", can mean different things to
people in different fields, even within philosophy and cognitive science. The kind
of dualism we have discussed is often referred to as Cartesian dualism, or mind-
body dualism. The kind of behaviorism we've discussed is sometimes known as
methodological behaviorism, or, more generally, psychological behaviorism.
There is a distinct (but related) strand of behaviorism in philosophy, which was
prevalent around the same time as the psychological version. If you read the
appendix in Mindware, this is the sense in which "behaviorism" is used there.
Keep this in mind if you consult other sources, and stick to the kind of -ism that
we focused on in class.
 Min. length: 600 words.

IW-2. Explain functionalism to a 6th grader. In doing so, be sure to address each of the
following:

1. What does functionalism claim about the nature of mental states?


2. How does the concept of the Turing machine relate to functionalism? In other
words, what role does the Turing machine play in the functionalist account of
the mind?

 Due 02/20.
 Cite all sources used, including any we read in class.
 Min. length: 600 words.

IW-3. The early part of the course has dealt with a related set of questions, including:

 Can machines think (understand, be intelligent, etc.)?


 If so, what kind of machine? If not, then why not?
 How can we judge whether a machine is intelligent (capable of thought,
understanding, etc.) or not? That is, what kind of evidence would should we use?

The assignment for this essay is to pick two of the readings to compare and contrast,
focusing on questions like the ones given above. On points where the two sides
disagree, explain which side you find more convincing. Note: The bullet-pointed
questions above are just meant as a guide. Depending on which pair of papers you
choose, you might focus more on one or two of these questions and less on the
other(s). Or you may find that there are other relevant questions or issues to focus on.
The organization of this essay is more open ended than on previous assignments.
However you choose to organize it, though, remember to be clear in terms of your
introduction, paragraphing, and transitions.

 Due 03/13.
 Include at least one specific reference (with page number) from each of the two
papers.
 Cite your sources using APA or MLA formatting.
 Min. length: 1000 words.

IW-4. One of the themes in philosophy of cognitive science concerns the relationship
between folk (or commonsense) psychology and scientific psychology (which, for our
purposes, can be taken to include neuroscience, much of AI, and much of cognitive
science in general). One way to understand this debate is in terms of the mind-body
problem, which has been a recurring thread throughout the semester. What is the
relationship between the mental realm and the physical realm (or are they identical)?
Do mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, and intentions) have "causal powers"? Why or
why not? Finally, what should be the relationship between folk psychology and
scientific psychology? Your assignment in this essay is to present your own argument
on some aspect of the folk psychology debate. That could mean addressing one of the
above questions, or it could mean focusing on another aspect of the recent material
(e.g.,the Dennett paper on the intentional stance, Ch.3 of Mindware, or even some
other relevant source, as long as you clear it first). Whatever the topic, make sure to
inlcude the following in your essay:

1. A clear, concise introductory paragraph that includes a statement of your thesis


and a brief overview of how you plan to support it
2. Two or three well-organized body paragraphs, each addressing a particular
aspect of your argument
3. A brief conclusion that revisits your thesis statement and (ideally) raises an
additional question or two for the reader to think about in light of your arguments.

 Due 04/10
 In contrast to the previous essays, you will need to formulate an argument of
your own rather than to explain or evaluate someone else's argument. However,
these tasks are not entirely unrelated, since one way to formulate a topic is to
take someone else's argument and look for ways to evaluate it, critique it, or
expand on it.
 Min. length: 1000 words.

IW-5. Revision of earlier piece or draft of final piece. Choice must be pre-approved by
11/21.

 Due 04/25.
 Min. length 1200 words (does not count towards 5,000 word IW requirement).
IW-6. The assignment for the final paper is to write an argument-based (i.e., thesis-
based) paper on a topic from the second half of the class, which means anything from
Week 9 onwards, including the following topics: evolutionary approaches to cognitive
science, embodied cognition, extended mind, dynamical systems approaches, etc.
(Any of the material from the Discussion sections of Mindware from Ch. 4-7 would be
fair game.)

You should have a discernible thesis that you back up with supporting arguments. For
example, you might pick something we've read or discussed that you disagree with and
want to argue against. Or you can pick something you agree with and argue for why you
think so-and-so is right. In either case, you would need to offer support for your
argument and also consider (and respond to) some potential counterarguments.

 Due 05/08.
 Min. length: 1500 words.

Writing Tutorial Services


For free help at any phase of the writing process—from brainstorming to polishing the
final draft—call Writing Tutorial Services (WTS, pronounced “wits”) at 855-6738 for an
appointment. When you visit WTS, you’ll find a tutor who is a sympathetic and helpful
reader of your prose. To be assured of an appointment with the tutor who will know
most about your class, please call in advance. WTS, in the Information Commons on
the first floor of the Wells Library, is open Monday- Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
and Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Walk-in tutorials are available when WTS has an
opening, but the appointment book often fills in advance. WTS tutors are also available
for walk-in tutorials (only) in the Academic Support Centers in Briscoe, Forest, and
Teter residence halls, open Sunday-Thursday 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Statement for Students with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that
provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among
other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a
learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities.
If you believe you have a disability requiring an accommodation, please contact IU
Disability Services for Students.
Statement about Academic Misconduct
University rules concerning academic misconduct will be rigorously enforced in this
class. See Section G of the IU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and
Conduct for details.
HPSC X100: Disordered Minds: The History and Philosophy of Psychiatry
Fall 2015 Schedule and Syllabus
Meeting Time: MWF 11:15-12:05; Location: Sycamore Hall 002

Instructor
Nicholas Zautra
Department of History and Philosophy
of Science
Cognitive Science Program
Office hours: by appointment

Primary Contact
Nicholas Zautra
1011 E. Third Street
Goodbody 009
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: nzautra@indiana.edu

- Vincent van Gogh “Corridor in the


asylum” (1889)

Course Description:
This course surveys one of the most interesting developments in the history and
philosophy of science: the scientific practices involved in making human beings
an object of study. We examine the ways in which psychologists and
psychiatrists have investigated human nature, approaches to research they have
developed to that end, major controversies in the field, and basic philosophical
assumptions made in the sciences of human nature. We investigate the
development of psychiatric theory, treatment methods, and institutions. Finally,
we connect philosophical questions raised by mental disorder and our attempts
to understand/treat it to debates in philosophy such as the mind/body problem,
the concept of a person, and the possibility of knowledge.

Course Objective
By the end of the course, students should have a broad knowledge of the history,
philosophy, and major concepts in the philosophy of psychiatry, and be able to
come to their own well-reasoned personal opinions about the issues in question.
Attendance/Class Participation Policy: Classes will involve a great deal of
participation. Thus, student participation and attendance is expected. You are
expected to have read the assignments and be ready to discuss the material in
depth. Your overall grade for the course will be lowered by a half letter grade for
every unexcused absence you have beyond three absences.

Required Text:
 Fulford, Bill, Tim Thornton, and George Graham. "Oxford textbook of
philosophy and psychiatry." (2006). (Available via IU Bookstore)

Assignments: This course will involve several different kinds of assignments.


The goals of these various assignments are to:

1. Acquaint you with various arguments, which have been presented in favor
of (or against) certain theories and approaches in psychiatry.
2. Examine the history of psychiatry, introducing you to debate about
interpretation of the historical process, focusing on important individuals
and movements and drawing attention to recurrent ideas and themes.
3. Expose you to conceptual analysis by relating historical conceptual
problems to modern problems in psychiatry, and by examining some key
concepts (such as ‘mind’, ‘behavior’, ‘consciousness’, ‘theory’,
‘explanation’, ‘mental illness’, etc.)
4. Foster the development of your own abilities to present and evaluate
arguments.

Points Breakdown of Assignments

Office Hours Visit 25 Points


Homework Exercises 400 Points
In-Class Presentation 175 Points
Midterm Exam 200 Points
Final Exam 200 Points

1000 Points TOTAL

Office Hours Visit (2.5%): Your first assignment will be to schedule an initial 10-
minute visit with your course instructor. This visit, which will take place during the
first two weeks of class will be an informal conversation primarily designed to
allow one-on-one face time between you and the instructor, a sort of “get-to-
know-you.” This visit will also serve to let you know where office hours will be
held, and to allow you to ask any questions you have regarding the course.

Homework Exercises (40%): Several homework exercises will be assigned


throughout the duration of the course. Each homework exercise will typically
include reading a short excerpt, thinking about that reading, and then responding
to several questions. The exercises can be found in the required textbook.

Class Presentation (17.5%): At the beginning of the semester, you will sign up
to focus on a particular kind of case of mental illness, and gather information
about it. Then each student will give a brief (10-minute) presentation on that
particular kind of mental illness and the philosophical issues that arise. In
gathering information about your chosen illness, I especially want you to try to
find descriptions of what it is like to have the disorder; what goes through the
mind of the person with the disorder, how do they think about other people, how
do they live from day to day with the disorder? I encourage you to find memoirs,
novels, movies, documentaries, TV shows, blogs, newspaper articles, artwork,
poetry, music, and also clinical descriptions by mental health professionals, so
you get a variety of perspectives.

Midterm Exam (15%): The midterm exam will cover topics in the required text
from first part of the course (Parts I & 2).

Final Exam (25%): The final exam will cover topics in the required text from the
second part of the course (Parts III, IV, & V).

Course Structure:
This course aims to cover the large majority of the text and consists of five parts:

Part I: Core Concepts in Philosophy and Mental Health


 What is a mental illness and how does it relate to disease?
Part II: A Philosophical History of Psychopathology
 How have we come to recognize the variety and subtlety of
psychopathological concepts?
Part III: Philosophy of Science and Mental Health
 What is the relationship between science and the experiencing subject?
Part IV: Values, Ethics, and Mental Health
 What are the moral and legal issues that arise in psychiatry?
Part V: Philosophy of Mind and Mental Health
 What is the role of rationality both in our understanding of minds and
mental states, and in the marking of the minds as different from other
aspects of the natural world?

Course Schedule:

Reading
Date Topic Assignments, etc.
Assignments
Week 1: Introduction to the History and Philosophy and Psychiatry
Aug 24 Organization and Overview
Aug 26 How to Read Philosophy Vaughn,
Chapter 1
Aug 28 How to Read Arguments Vaughn,
Chapter 2
Week 2: Part I: Core Concepts in Philosophy and Mental Health
Aug 31 Philosophical Problems in Chapters 2,
Mental Health and Practical pp. 4-13
Health
Sep 2 Philosophical Problems in Chapter 2, Chapter 2, Exercise 7
Mental Health and Practical pp. 14-21 Due
Health
Sep 4 Experiences Good and Bad: Chapter 3,
An Introduction to pp. 33-46
Psychopathology,
Classification, and Diagnosis
for Philosophers
Week 3: Part I (Continued)
Sep 7 Labor Day No Class
Sep 9 Philosophical Methods in Chapter 3,
Mental Health and Practice pp. 46-51;
Chapter 4,
pp. 61-73
Sep 11 Philosophical Methods in Chapter 4,
Mental Health and Practice pp. 73-83

Week 4: Part I (Continued)


Sep 14 Philosophical Methods in Chapter 4,
Mental Health and Practice pp. 61-73
(continued)
Sep 16 Philosophical Methods in Chapter 4, Chapter 4, Exercise 14
Mental Health and Practice pp. 73-83 Due
(Continued)
Sep 18 In-class Presentations
Session One
Week 5: Part II: A philosophical history of psychopathology
Sep 21 Philosophical outputs in Chapter 6
mental health practice and
research
Sep 23 Philosophical outputs in Chapter 6 Chapter 6, Exercise 16
mental health practice and (continued) Due
research
Sep 25 A brief history of mental Chapter 7
disorder
Week 6: Part II (Continued)
Sep 28 Karl Jaspers and General Chapter 8 Chapter 8, Exercise 6
Psychopathology Due
Sep 30 Phenomenology and Chapter 9,
Psychopathology pp. 181-191
Oct 2 Phenomenology and Chapter 9,
Psychopathology pp. 191-197
Week 7: Part II (Continued)
Oct 5 Phenomenology and Chapter 9, Chapter 9, Exercise 1
Psychopathology pp. 197-208 Due
Oct 7 MIDTERM EXAM
Oct 9 Fall Break No Class
Week 8: Part III: Philosophy of Science and Mental Health
Oct 12 Psychoanalysis: An Chapter 11,
introduction to the pp. 245-254
philosophy of science
Oct 14 Psychoanalysis: An Chapter 11,
introduction to the pp. 254-271
philosophy of science
Oct 16 Psychoanalysis: An Chapter 11, Chapter 11, Exercise 15
introduction to the pp. 271-283 Due
philosophy of science
Week 9: Part III (Continued)
Oct 19 Psychopathology and the Chapter 12,
theory dependence of Data pp. 290-297
Oct 21 Psychopathology and the Chapter 12,
theory dependence of Data pp. 297-303
Oct 23 Psychopathology and the Chapter 12, Chapter 12, Exercise 5
theory dependence of Data pp. 303-313 Due
Week 10: Part III (Continued)
Oct 26 Diagnosis, Explanation, and Chapter 14,
Tacit Knowledge pp. 386-391
Oct 28 Diagnosis, Explanation, and Chapter 14,
Tacit Knowledge pp. 391-403
Oct 30 In-class Presentations Chapter 14, Exercise 11
Session Two Due
Week 11: Part IV: Values, Ethics, and Mental Health
Nov 2 Tools of the Trade: an Chapter 17,
introduction to psychiatric pp. 470-479
ethics
Nov 4 Tools of the Trade: an Chapter 17,
introduction to psychiatric pp. 479-492
ethics
Nov 6 From bioethics to values- Chapter 18,
based practice pp. 499-509
Week 12: Part IV (Continued)
Nov 9 From bioethics to values- Chapter 18,
based practice pp. 509-519
Nov 11 From bioethics to values- Chapter 18,
based practice pp. 519-530
Chapter 20,
pp. 567-
Nov 13 Values in psychiatric Chapter 20,
diagnosis pp. 567-571
Week 13: Part IV (Continued)
Nov 16 Values in psychiatric Chapter 20,
diagnosis pp. 571-578
Nov 18 Values in psychiatric Reich, W.
diagnosis (1999).
Psychiatric
diagnosis as
an ethical
problem.
Nov 20 In-Class Presentations Chapter 20, Exercise 11
Session Three Due
Week 14: THANKSGIVING BREAK
Nov No Class No Class No Class
22-29
Week 15: Part V: Philosophy of Mind and Mental Health
Nov 30 Mind, brain, and mental Chapter 22,
illness: an introduction to the pp. 614-619
philosophy of mind
Dec 2 Mind, brain, and mental Chapter 22, Chapter 22, Exercises 4-6
illness: an introduction to the pp. 619-624
philosophy of mind
Dec 4 Agency, Causation, and Chapter 26,
Freedom pp. 718-727
Week 16: Part V (Continued)
Dec 7 Agency, Causation, and Chapter 26,
Freedom pp. 727-734
Dec 9 Knowledge of other minds Chapter 27,
pp. 739-750
Dec 11 Knowledge of other minds Chapter 27,
pp. 750-756
Finals Week
Dec Final Exam Review Session FINAL EXAM
14-18 TBA 5:00-7:00 p.m., Wed.,
December 16

Emotional concerns: Discussing controversial issues connected with personal


experiences of mental illness and family dynamics can bring up powerful
emotions, especially for people with difficult or abusive experiences in their
past. So it is important that the classroom be a safe and supportive space for
everyone in it. If at any point during class you do experience overwhelming
emotions, then you are quite free to leave and take some time for
yourself. Please let me know either when you leave the classroom or afterwards.

Academic and Personal Problems. If you have problems that cause you to be
late with work or to miss a number of classes, please stay in communication by
phone, email, or by meeting with me in person. I will be willing to work with you
and sort out a way for you to still stay in the class and get a fair grade. If you
miss a number of classes or fail to hand in work on time but don't give me any
explanation then you risk failing the class.
 
Plagiarism: The Indiana University Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and
Conduct (2005) indicate that students may be disciplined for several different
kinds of academic misconduct. In particular the code states: Plagiarism is defined
as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other students, as
one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either written or
oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is common
knowledge. What is considered 'common knowledge' may differ from course to
course. a. A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, opinions, theories,
formulas, graphics, or pictures of another person without acknowledgment. b. A
student must give credit to the originality of others and acknowledge an
indebtedness whenever: 1. Directly quoting another person’s actual words,
whether oral or written; 2. Using another person’s ideas, opinions, or theories; 3.
Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or
written; 4. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; or 5. Offering
materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections
without acknowledgment." (quoted from Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities,
and Conduct, Part II, Student Responsibilities, Academic Misconduct)

For the full IU policy on plagiarism: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/definition.html


Not sure? Take this self-test: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/
Statement for Students with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute
that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities.
Among other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be
guaranteed a learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation
of their disabilities. If you believe you have a disability requiring an
accommodation, please contact IU Disability Services for Students.
Instructor: Nicholas Zautra
Room: TBA
Office Hours: TBA, or by appointment
Email: nzautra@indiana.edu
Introduction/Premise: Lord Byron was quoted as saying, ―Fools are my theme,
let satire be my song.‖ Satire is a literary form in which topical issues, folly, or evil
are scorned by means of ridicule and irony, with the intent of shaming individuals,
and society, into improvement. Satire has been regarded as one of the most
effective communicative sources for understanding the history, social situations,
and social institutions of a society. This course adopts an interdisciplinary
approach to examining the philosophical, ethical, political, psychological, and
social dimensions of satire. We will study the history from which satire develops,
its various forms and how it works, the creative processes by which satire is
generated, and its philosophical foundations. We conclude the course with the
presentation of an original satirical work by each student.

Course Objectives: We will work through the various modes, topics, and
mediums among satire's historical cross-cultural development, answering the
questions: How is satire ―special‖ in comparison to other forms of criticism? What
makes satire so effective? What components are necessary and sufficient for
satire to function as it does? Does satire have to be humorous? What motivates
those who create satire? Is there an ―appropriate‖ level of satirical content, or can
some satire ―go too far‖? And, why is satire received differently in different parts
of the world? We will address these questions, and many of our own through
reflective writing assignments, philosophical discussions, outside research, film
screenings, public lectures and panels, and a creative final project. In doing so,
we will finish the semester with a thorough understanding of the nature and
function of satire, and more generally, the crucial role which social and moral
criticism play in providing valuable insights into an individual, a group, or even a
nation’s collective values, expectations, and norms.

Attendance/Class Participation Policy: Classes will involve a great deal of


participation. Thus, student participation and attendance is expected. You are
expected to have read the assignments and be ready to discuss the material in
depth. Your overall grade for the course will be lowered by a half letter grade for
every unexcused absence you have beyond three permitted absences.

Plagiarism: ―The Indiana University Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities,


and Conduct (2005) indicates that students may be disciplined for several
different kinds of academic misconduct. In particular the code states: Plagiarism
is defined as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other
students, as one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for
either written or oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is
common knowledge. What is considered 'common knowledge' may differ from
course to course. a. A student must not adopt or reproduce ideas, opinions,
theories, formulas, graphics, or pictures of another person without
acknowledgment. b. A student must give credit to the originality of others and
acknowledge an indebtedness whenever: 1. Directly quoting another person’s
actual words, whether oral or written; 2. Using another person’s ideas, opinions,
or theories; 3. Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others,
whether oral or written; 4. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; or 5.
Offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or
collections without acknowledgment." (quoted from Code of Student Rights,
Responsibilities, and Conduct, Part II, Student Responsibilities, Academic
Misconduct)

For the full IU policy on plagiarism: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/definition.html


Not sure? Take this self-test: http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/

Assignments

This interdisciplinary course will involve several different kinds of assignments.


The goals of the these various assignments are to 1) reinforce your
understanding of the nature and function of satire, 2) engage your ability to think
critically and creatively, 3) develop your skills of inquiry and analysis, 4) introduce
you to analyzing, discussing, and writing philosophical and ethical arguments
under the analytic tradition, and 5) teach you how to create your very own piece
of satire.

1. Office Hours Visit: Your first assignment will be to schedule an initial 10-
minute visit with your course instructor at their office hours location. This
visit, which will take place during the first two weeks of class will be an
informal conversation primarily designed to allow one-on-one face time
between you and the instructor, a sort of ―get-to-know-you.‖ This visit will
also serve to let you know where office hours will be held, and to allow you
to ask any questions you have regarding the course.
2. Analytical Responses: Beginning in the third week, a short (roughly 300-
400 word) analytical response will be due each week. Basically, I'd like
you to write out your thoughts on the readings for that specific week.
These weekly responses do not have to be formerly crafted essays, but
they should read coherently. The writing should not be merely a synopsis
(although you may want to include a couple of sentences regarding the
author's main arguments, if that helps to place your thoughts in context).
The piece, instead, should summarize your own thoughts on the readings
and topics that you would like to discuss during class. What interests you
about the readings? Where in the author's arguments are assumptions
being made? What areas of the readings do you not fully understand?
What questions do you hope to bring up during class? For further
suggestions on how to approach the readings and these responses,
consult the ―Guidelines for Doing Philosophy‖ document (see attached).
3. Class Presentation: To develop your skills of inquiry and analysis, you
will sign up to co-lead part of the class discussion with one other student.
You will prepare a brief (10-minute) timed presentation on the assigned
reading and 2-3 specific discussion questions that will engage the class in
an in-depth discussion. Presentations and discussion questions will be
due by 5:00pm via e-mail the day before you are scheduled to present.
You must also accompany your submission with a paragraph that explains
in detail your individual contribution to the project.
4. Critical Satirical Reviews: You won't really know satire until you go out
and experience it for yourself. Throughout the semester, you are required
to attend/view/read three outside satirical works of your choosing that will
serve as the source of three 1-2 page critical satirical reviews. In these
reviews, you will analytically deconstruct the satirical work and identify: 1)
who is the satire directed toward (i.e. who is the target)? 2) Why is this
particular work considered satire? 3) Was satire utilized effectively? 4)
What was your overall reaction to the piece? 5) How might this satirical
work have been improved? These reviews are expected to be more
polished and less ―stream of consciousness‖ than the weekly analytical
writing assignments, and are due on the last day of class.
5. Analytic Paper: To help you focus your thinking and develop your
analytic writing, a 7-page double-spaced analytic paper will be due toward
the end of the semester. For this paper, you will analyze one conceptual
or ethical dimension of satire we have covered in class. Paper topics must
be submitted to the instructor and approved by midterm. For topic ideas,
look to your analytic writing assignments to see what interests you, and
take advantage of office hours. The paper process will include the
submission of a rough draft, two independent peer-reviews from your
colleagues, and a final draft. Consult the Style Guide (see attached) for
paper formatting and Draft Essay and Revision Guidelines for general
writing and revision guidelines (see attached). On the day rough drafts are
due, you will bring in (3) printed copies of your paper: 1 copy to turn into
your instructor, and 2 copies to distribute to your peers for peer review.
Your final grade will take into account your incorporation of comments
from your peers.
6. Peer Reviews: To further develop your analytic writing ability, you will be
responsible for reviewing two 7-page essays of your classmates following
the Peer Review Guidelines (see attached). On the day rough drafts are
due, you will collect two essays. You will return the following week with the
two student essays and printed copies of your peer reviews to give to your
classmates.
7. Final Creative Project: To put your new-found knowledge of satire along
with your ability to think critically and creatively to the test, you will have
the opportunity to create your own original satirical work. You will choose
among one or more of the various modes of satire that interests you (film,
theatrical performance, editorial piece, collection of political cartoons,
song, etc.) and the specific target of which you are satirizing. While you
may utilize the assistance of other students in your final project if need be
(for a theatrical performance, film, etc.) each student must create and turn
in their own final project – this is not group work. You are encouraged to
begin thinking about this final creative project early on in the semester,
and to write your ideas down as they emerge. Six weeks before final
projects are due, you will come to class with 3 fleshed-out ideas you will
―workshop‖ with your peers. Once you have selected an idea for your final
project, you will submit your idea and have it approved by the instructor.
Upon approval, you will schedule a time to present and/or perform your
satirical piece during the last week of class. Your final project will be due
on the day and time you are schedule to present. I welcome your creative
approaches, and looks forward to see what our class develops.

Points Breakdown of Assignments

Office Hours Visit 25 Points


Analytical Responses (13) 195 Points
Class Presentation 150 Points
Critical Satirical Reviews (3) 150 Points
Analytic Paper 200 Points
Peer Reviews (2) 50 Points
Final Project 230 Points

1000 Points TOTAL

Weekly Syllabus and Readings

Required Texts:

1. Amarasingam, Amarnath, ed. The Stewart/Colbert effect: essays on


the real impacts of fake news. McFarland, 2011.

2. Feinberg, Leonard. Introduction to Satire. Pilgrims’ Process, Inc., 2008

3. Morreall, John. Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor.


John Wiley and Sons, 2009. (Available Online via IU Library)
4. The Book of Mormon Script Book: The Complete Book and Lyrics of
the Broadway Musical

To allow access to a wide variety of resources yet keep textbook costs low, the
majority of readings will be available online in scanned pdf format via Oncourse,
or through the IU Library’s electronic resources collection. If you like, feel free to
purchase printed versions of the books or other texts.

Course Structure:

The course is broken into four parts for the purpose of focusing discussion. Each
part specifically contributes yet overlaps with the others to offer a broad account
of 1) What satire is (its nature) and 2) How it works (its function). Part One
outlines the characteristics of satire. Part Two examines history and content of
satiric literature in primary topics and communities. Part Three explains the
general theories, structure, and creative processes of satire. Part Four discusses
the psychological, philosophical, and social dimensions of satire, and its
limitations.

PART 1: The Characteristics of Satire


Week 1: Introduction to the Nature of Satire

We will begin by introducing the course and its aims, followed by a survey of the
numerous attempts by literary theorists and philosophers to characterize and
classify the invariant qualities that make satire “what it is.”

 Which qualities have been proposed as being necessary and sufficient for
satire?
 Why is no satisfactory definition possible?
 How does satire use reason to create unreason; logic to create illogic?
 Why is satire so appealing in comparison to other literary forms?
 Does satire rely on norms?
 Is satire necessary?

Readings:

Feinberg, Chapter 1: Characteristics of Satire

Assignments:

You must schedule your initial office hours visit with me, as well as sign up to co-
lead part of a future class discussion by the end of the first week.

Week 2: Satire and its Critics

Following our introduction to the course, we will continue our exploration of the
nature of satire with readings dealing with critical theory of satire representative
of many of the ideas and problems connected with the subject.

 How do the various satirical critics and their philosophy of satire compare
with one another? How do they differ?
 By general agreement, instruction and pleasure are accepted as the two
aims of literature. Instruction, or the moral improvement of humanity and
human society, is often regarded as the more important aim of satire.
Among these theorists do you find any who speaks for pleasure? Can you
think of any satire, past or present that seems to have pleasure as its main
objective? Do you prefer to read for pleasure or instruction—or both?
 Is humor essential to satire?
 Manifestly satire has been written in many different forms—verse, story,
play, etc. Does the form in any way limit or determine the meaning? How?
 Frye defines satire as a kind of writing that breaks up ―things which
impede the free movement of society.‖ Does he imply, then, that satire is
revolutionary? May it not be conservative, or even reactionary?
 How are changes in satirists related to the changes and ethos of a
particular society?

Readings:

Allen & Stephens, Part 1: Theory in ―Satire: Theory & Practice‖, pp. 1-47

Assignments:

In-class Activity: Having considered these definitions and theories, write your
own definition of satire in a one-page essay.

PART 2: The History and Content of Satire


Week 3: History of Satire 1: Horation and Juvenalian Satire

This week, we transition from our philosophical investigation of the nature of


satire into its history. We will explore the historical development of satire starting
with “The Satire of the Trades” in Ancient Egypt at the beginning of the 2 nd
millennium BCE up through Johnathan Swift‟s “A Modest Proposal” in the Age of
Enlightenment in the 18th Century. We will focus our historical analysis through
particular works representative of the two primary modes: Horation and
Juvenalian satire.

 Vice (or evil) and folly are, broadly speaking, the two main objects of
satirical attack. Which of these was the main concern of Horace? Of
Juvenal?
 Horace says he writes without malice, and several other writers, including
Swift, favor the laugh instead of the lash. Yet one does not laugh in
reading Gulliver‟s Travels; and Juvenal boils with anger and indignation.
Which of the two attitudes do you consider more likely to be successful as
a corrective of evil or folly?
 Is it important to be aware of possible differences between the actual
personality of the writer and the personality of his satirist? Does the satirist
have an obligation to make clear the distinction between the two? Why?
 What was the satire of the Medieval Islamic World? How did this satire
tackle such serious topics now known as anthropology, sociology, and
psychology?
 Frye says ―The novelist sees evil and folly as social diseases, but the
Mineppean satirist sees them as diseases of the intellect.‖ What is
Mineppean satire? How does it overlap with Juvenal satire?
 How did the social support of rationality and rise of partisan politics during
the Age of Enlightenment contribute to the switch from Horatian, soft,
pseudo-satire, to biting Juvenal satire?

Readings:

Johnathan Swift’s ―A Modest Proposal‖ (Oncourse)


Geoffrey Chaucer’s ―The Nun’s Priest’s Tale‖ (Oncourse)
Horace’s ―Town Mouse and Country Mouse‖ (Oncourse)
Voltaire’s ―Memnon the Philosopher‖ (Oncourse)
Film, ―Gulliver’s Travels‖ (In class)

Assignments:

You will submit your first of thirteen analytical responses written in response to
the readings. Responses should be submitted via Oncourse under the
―Assignments‖ tab.

Week 4: History of Satire II: Cultural Paradigms, Public Spheres, and


Narrative Forms

We continue our historical analysis of the development of satire to answer the


question of what happened to satire after its period of prominence in the early
eighteenth century, and to address a series of philosophical questions that follow
from the first concerning the history of relations between genres.

 How and why does a genre that has been dominant, such as satire, fade
in importance and give way to other genres?
 What elements do new, or newly significant, genres share with the earlier
one; in what ways do they challenge, disavow, suppress, but also
appropriate features of the prevailing form?
 Can shifts in the appeal and usefulness of genres be related to large shifts
in paradigms of cultural understanding?
 Is it possible to construct a genealogy of genres?
 According to Foucault, how do epistemological paradigms shape and limit
how the world is understood and what can count as true in different
periods?
 How did women use satire to access a cultural public sphere that
produced narratives of love, domesticity, and the moral dilemmas of non-
aristocratic individuals? Did the satiric elements tend to be stronger and to
persist longer in women’s writings?

Readings:

―Introduction‖ in Frank Palmeri’s Satire, History, Novel (Oncourse)


―Chapter 4: Satire, Conjectual History and the Bildungsroman, 1720-1795‖ in
Frank Palmeri’s Satire, History, Novel (Oncourse)

Assignments:

Analytical Response 2 DUE.

Week 5: The Material of Satire

Having grounded ourselves in the nature and history of satire, we now turn
toward the content of satirical literature. We examine the primary sources from
which satire is primarily drawn, the various images of the world satirists put forth,
and particular materials that are especially suitable for satiric treatment.

 Why does the violation of social norms arouse the satirists’ attack? Do
moral norms have the same motivational effects?
 Does satire flourish in an unstable, changing society or in a secure,
homogenous one?
 Some scholars think censorship stimulates a satirist to imaginative
heights, while others believe that a free society nourishes satire. Do
satirists work best in a regimented (censored) society or free society?
 Is great satire produced when the writer is in tune with his times, as Taine
and Plekhanov insisted, or by writers who are hostile to their environment,
such as Aristophanes, Juvenal, Oscar Wild, and Evelyn Waugh?
 What do the range of world images, e.g. the puppet show, pseudo utopia,
menagerie, madhouse, a throng of fools and rascals all share in common?
 What is the importance surrounding the co-occurring concepts of a
mixture of satirical material with nonsatiric content and of satiric devices
with nonsatiric techniques?

Readings:

Feinberg, Chapter 2
Feinberg, Chapter 3
Feinberg, Chapter 4

Assignments:

Analytical Response 3 DUE.

Week 6: Satire of Religion


We begin to focus our analysis of satiric content on one of the most consistently
targeted topics: Religious institutions.

 Is religious satire simply man’s attempt of playing God?


 Why is religious satire also considered philosophical satire? What do
religion and philosophy have in common? What is the particular
philosophy posited by ―The Book of Mormon‖?
 Is it wrong to criticize certain religions using satire? Should sincerely held
religious views not be held to ridicule?
 How has atheism been satirized as being its own religious institution?
 Should ―Life of Brian‖ be considered blasphemy? Why does the satirical
mode and tone of ―Life of Brian‖ continue to be debated among critics?
 Because the satirist is likely to be a skeptic, does this mean she suspects
that all values are relative? Are values relative?

Readings
The Book of Mormon Script Book: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the
Broadway Musical
Video: Monty Python’s ―Life of Brian‖ (In-class)

Assignments:

Analytical Response 4 DUE.

Week 7: Satire of Sex

We shift focus our analysis of the content of satire to the second most-common
and all-too-popular topic: Sex

 How is satire used to create awareness of gender roles and relations?


 How does the film ―The Graduate‖ seem to suggest that relationships
should be based on equality, and not sex?
 Is satire received differently between sexes?
 Do most satirical works accurately reflect the sex and gender roles of the
time they are written?
 Is there some intrinsic value in reducing vulgarity in satire? Or can
vulgarity add to the satirists intended effect on the audience?
 What motivates individual who discuss sexual topics to use satire as
opposed to other literary forms? Can satire do more work with sexual
topics than other forms?

Readings:

Selections from Ovid: The Art of Love (Oncourse)


Video: ―The Graduate‖ (Link available online via Oncourse)

Assignments:
Analytical Response 5 DUE.

Week 8: Political Satire

We continue our analysis of the content of satire to political satire, focusing


primarily on both pragmatic and theoretical considerations of contemporary
political satire.

 How have The Daily Show and The Colbert Report impacted political
perceptions, engagement, and trust?
 What are the effects of contemporary political satire on viewers’ cynicism,
civic participation, and perceived efficacy?
 Is contemporary political satire breeding cynicism and hurting political
discourse, or is it a powerful force holding politicians and media outlets
accountable?
 How does political satire teach, influence, and motivate political
information processing and political participation?
 Does failed satire on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have unique
effects?
 How does political satire affect and sometimes mitigate conflict during
conversation?

Readings:

―Is Fake News the Real News? The Significance of Stewart and Colbert for
Democratic Discourse, Politics, and Policy‖ in The Stewart/Colbert Effect
―The Science of Satire: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as Sources of
Public Attention to Science and the Environment‖ in The Stewart/Colbert Effect
―Jon Stewart a Heretic? Surely You Jest: Political Participation and Discussion
Among Viewers of Late-Night Comedy Programming‖ in The Stewart/Colbert
Effect

Assignments:

Analytical Response 6 DUE.


In-Class Activity: In small groups of four, prepare a brief (1-2 minute) satirical
―scene‖ mirroring the form of either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report and
perform it in front of the class.

Week 9: Satire across Cultures

Much of satire is specific to language and culture. A subversive force, satire often
relates to culturally specific configurations of authority. The history, customs,
language, and gestures of a given culture – be it a national, ethnic, diasporic,
gendered identity – create „rules of engagement‟ for producing and
understanding satire. We extend our analysis of the content of satire to
investigate the nature and function of satire across a diverse grouping of
cultures.
 How did ―Commedia all’Italiana‖ (Italian-style comedy, 1950s-1970s) serve
as a crucial means for exploring via satire the social and political upheaval
unfolding throughout Italy during this historical period?
 Why was exporting the show ―Everybody Loves Raymond‖ to Russia such
a difficult feat for the producers? What satirized values of the American
family are not shared with that of a Russian family?
 What are the ways that satire is taken up in Spain to combat strong
censorship from the early stages of the dictatorship to the contemporary
present?
 How does satire, in the case of censorship in Spain, express something
inexpressible?
 How can satire at once become a place of resistance and respite for a
citizenship embedded in silence?
 Should the proliferation of political satire in post-Mao China via the internet
be seen as a sign of new political openness, or a part of ―everyday forms
of resistance,‖ or a surrogate venue through which Chinese people could
air political dissent under authoritarian rule and even subject the Chinese
Party-State to public scrutiny?

Readings:

Hennessey, ―A Cinematic Premonition of Disorder: Social and Political Satire in


Bellocchio's‖ (Oncourse)
Fry, ―Spanish humor: A hypotheory, a report on initiation of research‖ (Oncourse)
Rofel, ―Yearnings: Televisual love and melodramatic politics in contemporary
China.‖ (Oncourse)
Film: Exporting Raymond (Link available via Oncourse)

Assignments:

Analytical Response 7 DUE.

PART 3: General Theories, Structure, and the Creative Process


Week 10: The Techniques of Satire

Having surveyed a broad array of satire, we now turn to the general theory of
satiric techniques. We will learn how the basic techniques of humor are used for
satiric purposes, and analyze the structure of satiric friction.

 How should the satirist give the impression of infallibility while constantly
pointing out the fallibility of others?
 Do you agree with the claim that satire achieves its effect less by what it
says than by how it says it?
 How does dramatic irony stem not from a cosmic source (whim or
indifference in heaven) but from social causes, the absurdities and
contradictions of man-made customs?
 What are the technical differences between romantic and realistic satire?
Why is realistic satire more difficult to write?
 Is humor always, as Kant suggests, the transformation of a strained
expectation into nothing?
 What is Reductio ad absurdum? How do all satiric utopias make use of
this technique?

Readings:

Feinberg, Chapter 5: Theory of Satiric Technique


Feinberg, Chapter 6: The Technique of Incongruity
Feinberg, Chapter 7: The Technique of Surprise
Feinberg, Chapter 8: The Technique of Pretense

Assignments:

Analytical Response 8 DUE.


Homework for Next Week: Bring in 3 fleshed-out ideas for final projects you will
―workshop‖ with your peers.

Week 11: The Creative Process

Following an exhaustive introduction to the satirical techniques available to our


disposal, we will now focus on the creative process behind producing original
satirical works. The primarily goal of this week is to adequately prepare you to
begin working on your final project.

 How does a satirist use the traditional devices of storytelling in a special


way, adapting them freely to his specific purposes in each satire?
 Are satiric characters ―types‖ or individuals? Is it better strategy to
deliberately choose stereotypes instead of realistic characters when
writing satire?
 How does the editorial staff of the Onion decide write their satire? How
does their process differ from that of other satirical writers?
 Is the Onion‟s process of selecting headlines a rational, objective
process? How do the writers know that a certain satirical piece will work?
 What is The New Yorker creative process for coming up with satirical
cartoons?
 What various exercises can one do alone or with a group to facilitate the
generation of satirical ideas?

Readings:

Feinberg, Chapter 11: Beams and Studs


―The Onion: An Interview with America’s Finest News Source‖ (Oncourse)
Robert Mankoff, Cartoon Editor, New Yorker: ―The New Yorker’s Cartoon
Process: Creating, Editing, Publishing, and Monetizing Cartoon Humor‖
(Oncourse)
Assignments:

Analytical Response 9 DUE.


Final Project Ideas DUE.
In-Class Activity: Workshop Final Project Ideas with Peers
In-Class Assignment: Submit one entry to this week’s New Yorker Cartoon
Caption Contest (Link available via Oncourse).

Community Involvement Public Lecture (Optional):

This week, a special public lecture open to all Collins residents at large will be
given by select members of the editorial staff of the satirical news publication,
―The Onion.‖ The lecture will focus on the editorial staff’s systematic creative
process of generating high-quality satire.

PART 4: Psychology, Ethics, and Philosophy of Satire


Week 12: The Psychology of Satire

We shift our focus from the creation of satire to the psychology of satire.
Primarily, we will be investigating 1) the psychology behind the satirist
themselves, and 2) the central psychological theories of humor and how they
relate to satire.

 Can Walker’s account of resentment be used to illuminate the nature and


function of satire?
 If satire is motivated by, expresses, provokes resentments in others,
leading to positive effects within individuals and societies: is having
resentments a moral virtue?
 What are the three jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for humor as
suggested by the Benign Violation Theory of Humor? Can these
conditions be applied to all modes of satire?
 How does satire provide a healthy and socially beneficial way to react to
hypothetical threats, remote concerns, minor setbacks, social faux pas,
cultural misunderstandings, and other benign violations people encounter
on a regular basis?
 What are the four primary functions of humor in communication?
 Does satire allow for the foraging of a sense of belonging or fellowship
where one has not been felt before?

Readings:

Morreall, Chapter 1: The Traditional Rejection of Humor and Traditional Theories


of Humor
Zautra, ―Resentment in Satire‖ (Oncourse)
McGraw et al., ―Benign Violations Making Immoral Behavior Funny‖ (Oncourse)
Meyer, ―Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four functions of humor in
communication‖ (Oncourse)

Assignments:

Analytical Response 10 DUE.


Scheduling of Final Project Presentation DUE.
In-Class Activity: Working in groups of three, you and your group will research,
and give a short (2-3 minute) presentation on one of ten psychological theories of
humor as it relates to satire.

Week 12: Humor and Satire as Aesthetic Experience

A central idea in aesthetics is aesthetic experience. While philosophers have


characterized it in different ways, there is general agreement that it is a kind of
appreciation in which we perceive or contemplate something for the satisfaction
of the experience itself, not in order to achieve something else. Starting in the
18th century, the lack of self-concern and personal advantage in aesthetic
experience was called “disinterestedness.” We will analyze this philosophical
idea of attending to something for the pleasure of the experience rather than to
gain knowledge or reach a goal as it applies to the experience of satirical
amusement.

 What are the six aesthetic modes, and which seems the most similar to
satire?
 What distinguishes aesthetic from non-aesthetic satire?
 Does satire have its own peculiar logic? Does this peculiar logical form
add to the aesthetic experience?
 What makes satire funny?
 Is spontaneous satire more enjoyable than prepared satire?
 How do amusement and emotions involve different orientations to
experience? How might they alter one’s perception of a satirical work?

Readings:

Mead, ―The Nature of Aesthetic Experience‖ (Oncourse)


Morreall, Chapter 4: The Mona Lisa Smile: The Aesthetics of Humor

Assignments:

Analytical Response 11 DUE.


FIRST DRAFT OF ESSAY DUE

Week 13: Laughing at the Wrong Time: The Negative Ethics of Satire

In discussing the traditional accounts of humor as they relate to satire, we


touched on several moral objections to it. This week, we will examine those
objections systematically, suggesting a way to handle the morality of satire.
 What are the eight common moral objections to humor in satire? What are
their shortcomings?
 Does the practical moral disengagement of satire, as we have seen, help
to explain the opposition between amusement and negative emotions?
 Does the claim, ―It‟s only a joke‖ excuse stereotyping in ethnic satire? Why
(not)?
 Is satire a moral virtue?
 What are the main harmful effects of satire?
 When is it wrong to laugh?

Readings:

Morreall, Chapter 5: Laughing at the Wrong Time: The Negative Ethics of Humor
Gaut, ―Just joking: the ethics and aesthetics of humor‖ (Oncourse)
Smuts, ―The Ethics of Humor: Can Your Sense of Humor be Wrong?‖ (Oncourse)
Shabbir & Thwaites, ―The use of humor to mask deceptive advertising: it’s no
laughing matter‖ (Oncourse)

Assignments:

Analytical Response 12 DUE.


PEER REVIEWS OF ESSAY DUE

Week 14: Having a Good Laugh: The Positive Ethics of Satire

While the moral disengagement in satire can be harmful in several ways, as


we‟ve seen, it can also be beneficial. This week, we will further examine satire‟s
benefits, to build a positive ethics of satire.

 What are the intellectual virtues fostered by satire? What are the moral
virtues?
 What were the three main benefits of satire during the Holocaust?
 Should satire be uncensored?
 Does satire involve a form of self-transcendence?
 Should we satirize and laugh at ourselves? In what way(s)?
 When is it right to laugh?

Readings:

Morreall, Chapter 6: Having a Good Laugh: The Positive Ethics of Humor


Peifer, ―Can We Be Funny? The Social Responsibility of Political Humor‖
(Oncourse)
Assignments:

Analytical Response 13 DUE.


REVISED ESSAY DUE

Week 15: Satire and the Existentialists: Philosophy and Satire


During this course, we have a looked at numerous assessments of satire by
traditional philosophers, psychologist, historians, and literary critics, many
continually pointing toward the benefits of satire. In our final week of readings, we
will bring together philosophy and the benefits of satire, evaluating the argument
that from the beginning of philosophy, its practitioner should have appreciated
the value of satire, since most of its benefits are benefits of philosophy, too.

 Was Socrates the first stand-up comedian?


 How do both satire and philosophy work against the natural human
predisposition to indoctrination?
 How did Kierkegaard and Nietzsche demonstrate considerable
appreciation of the connections between satire and philosophy?
 If it is permissible to take one step back and notice the incongruity in our
lives, why would it somehow be inauthentic to take a second step back
and laugh at that incongruity, especially if it is some permanent feature of
the human condition about which nothing can be done?
 Does satire foster wisdom?
 In cultivating our sense of humor and appreciation of satire, do we develop
our knowledge of how to ―live well and cope with the central problems and
avoid the predicament(s) human beings find themselves in‖?

Readings:

Morreall, Chapter 7: Homo Sapiens and Homo Ridens: Philosophy and Comedy
Morreall, Chapter 8: The Glass is Half-Empty and Half-Full: Comic Wisdom

Assignments:

No homework: Continue working on Final Projects

Week 16: Final Project Presentations

We conclude the course with in-class presentations and/or performances of your


final projects. There will be no readings for this week.

 Who is the satire directed toward (i.e. who is the target)?


 Why is this particular students’ work considered satire?
 Was satire utilized effectively?
 What was your overall reaction to the piece?
 How might this satirical work be improved?

Assignments:

FINAL PROJECTS DUE


CRITICAL SATIRICAL REVIEWS DUE