978-1285444604 Solution Manual Part 8

A. Purpose

1. Provide participants with experience in the consensus method of

decision making.

2. Reveal the primary strengths and drawbacks of consensus decision

making.

3. Permit a discussion of criteria for evaluating information in groups

B. Time required: 60-75 minutes

C. Instructions

1. Divide class into those who wish to be on juries (small groups of 5-7) and

those who wish to play parts in the mock trial: plaintiff team (2-4 members),

defense team (2-4 members), and witnesses (5 total).

2. Everyone involved in the mock trial who is NOT on a jury should be given a

copy of the handout provided below. Jurors should not be given the handout.

3. Allow the plaintiff team to prepare its two witnesses (Michael Kramer and

Brandon Broomfield) and the defense team to prepare its three witnesses

(Anthony Milpitas, Violet Jones, and James Kilpatrick) for about 15 minutes.

Jury groups can take a 15-minute break outside of class. Have jurors peruse

material on criteria for evaluating information in groups (see “Mock Trial

Jury Analysis” handout) . Impress upon both teams that the purpose of

questioning of their own witnesses is to present the facts that help their case

and the purpose

of cross-examination questions is to damage the credibility of testimony of

opposing witnesses.

4. Conduct a trial with brief opening statements from both teams, all 5 witnesses

examined and cross-examined, and brief closing statements presented.

5. Jury groups will then deliberate openly in class among themselves for about

15 minutes to decide the case. Trial participants will listen in silence.

6. Each group will explain its decision and justify it on the basis of criteria

offered in the text for evaluating information.

D. Processing: discuss the case, the decisions by jurors, the criteria for evaluating

evidence and how it applies to this activity, and whether consensus was

difficult. POSTSCRIPT: this case is based on a real incident—the year was 1965,

Michael Kramer was actually Martin Luther King, Metropolis was Chicago, and

the ordinance was actually even more restrictive (e. g., only 500 protesters

allowed to march). King wanted to demonstrate that racism was as problematic in

the North as in the South at that time. The Chicago City Council passed a

restrictive ordinance to prevent King from marching. He subsequently did

anyway with 10,000 demonstrators. He was arrested and put in jail. He appealed

to federal court and the court through out the ordinance as unconstitutionally

restrictive of free speech and protest.

HANDOUT

LOCATION: Metropolis

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Metropolis has been the target of numerous mass

demonstrations that have resulted in severe violence, even riots. The city council passed the

ordinance detailed below to keep the peace and to prevent further instances of mass

violence between protesters and police and between protesters and onlookers who disagree

with the demonstrators’ point of view. Freedom of speech is a central issue: does the

ordinance place too many restrictions on free speech, or does it strike an acceptable balance

between the rights of protesters to exercise free speech and citizens of Metropolis to be

protected from violence and mass disruption.

MAIN ORDINANCE:

A. All protests and public demonstrations shall be limited to one such

demonstration per day

B. A permit to demonstrate in a public place shall be obtained no less than two

weeks in advance of the demonstration

C. Permits shall be issued on a first-come, first-serve basis—no exceptions

D. Only one neighborhood/location may be the target during any lawfully

permitted demonstration

E. No more than 1000 persons may march during the demonstration

F. Demonstrations must occur during daylight hours other than rush hours

LAW SUIT PLAINTIFF CLAIMS: The Metropolis ordinance violates the civil rights of

citizens living in this “free country.” Michael L. Kramer was unlawfully and

unconstitutionally denied his freedom of speech and is suing the city of Metropolis,

the police department, and the city council for $5 million.

MAIN WITNESSES TO BE CALLED

Plaintiff

A. Michael L. Kramer—plaintiff who has filed suit.

B. Brandon Broomfield—demonstrator beaten by Metropolis police during a

melee that broke out between demonstrators and onlookers.

Defense

A. Anthony Milpitas—Metropolis Chief of Police; was responsible for

maintaining law and order during the demonstration

B. Violet Jones—caught up in the violence that occurred when onlookers attacked

demonstrators during the march; she suffered a gash to her head, bruises, and a

strained back requiring long-term therapy.

C. James Kilpatrick—Metropolis city councilman who helped pass the ordinance

DEPOSITIONS

Anthony Milpitas—Metropolis Chief of Police

Report of the Chief of Police

On July 5th, Michael L. Kramer led a march of approximately 10,000 demonstrators who

were specifically protesting the Metropolis ordinance passed on March 31st of this year

that places some limitations on public demonstrations in the streets of Metropolis. Mr.

Kramer never attempted to secure a permit for his march. Another legally sanctioned march

of approximately 700 people took place on the very same day. Mr. Kramer led his march

into several neighborhoods and locations in direct violation of the Metropolis ordinance.

The march began at 5PM, during rush hour, and lasted two hours past sundown. When Mr.

Kramer was confronted by me regarding his violations of the city ordinance, he sought to

justify his violations on freedom of speech grounds. I repeatedly asked him to cease his

demonstration and to encourage his followers to disperse. He refused. I ordered him

arrested and taken into custody, whereupon he posted bail.

Violet Jones

My name is Violet Jones and I was present during the mass demonstration on July 5th of

this year. I was not personally participating in the demonstration. I heard the noise created

by what appeared to be thousands of demonstrators, and I came to see what was happening.

Although I sympathize with the protesters’ viewpoint, I didn’t appreciate becoming

involved in the violent confrontations between some protesters and a few onlookers. The

fight that broke out appeared to be provoked by the onlookers. The demonstrators were

engaging in a peaceful, although noisy, protest. A few onlookers apparently disliked the

demonstrators’ point of view and they began taunting some demonstrators. Within a minute

or two, a couple of onlookers physically attacked some demonstrators, and a frightening

melee occurred. It seemed as though hundreds from both sides became involved. Police

quickly came to the scene and attempted to break up the violence, but with little success.

There were many injured in the encounter, including me. I suffered a severe gash to my

head, bruises in several places, and a strained back when I was thrown to the ground by

police.

James Kilpatrick

My name is James Kilpatrick. I am currently a member of the Metropolis City Council. I

voted to pass the ordinance Mr. Kramer is accused of violating. The basic justification for

the ordinance is to keep the peace and protect all of our citizens. When a march takes place

without adequate notice to the city and police, when it becomes overly large, and when it

intrudes on the peace and tranquility of neighbors uninterested in obtrusive and noisy

demonstrations in our city, the ability of authorities to enforce the law is jeopardize. Large,

unregulated demonstrations place a heavy burden on the resources of the city and on the

police department. Large demonstrations can easily get out of control, as did this one in

question. The police cannot adequately protect innocent bystanders from becoming

ensnared in violence when demonstrations become larger than about 1,000 individuals.

When police resources are stretched to the limit to control one large demonstration, they

cannot control any other demonstration on the same day occurring elsewhere in the city.

Crime rates increase when large demonstrations occur because police cannot enforce laws

and protect citizens when concentrating on a demonstration in one part of the city.

Michael L. Kramer—defendant

My name is Michael L. Kramer. I live in Ontario, California. I organized the march in

question because I feel strongly that the Metropolis ordinance is an unconstitutional

restriction on freedom of speech. I oppose this ordinance and sought to violate it directly to

make the following points:

1. Limiting demonstrations to 1,000 people is unduly restrictive, and impossible to enforce

(ever tried to count the size of a crowd?). A march’s success is largely determined by the

size of the crowd demonstrating. A thousand people march is not nearly as influential as a

march of 10,000. The “Million Man March” would have been ignored if it had become the

“Thousand Man March.” Plus, preventing anyone over 1,000 demonstrators from

participating denies them their freedom of speech.

2. The provision that a demonstration cannot occur at night and must not occur during rush

hour is ludicrous. How can you have a candlelight vigil to protest a war, for example,

during daylight hours. The rush hour provision is far too general. Our demonstration in no

way disrupted primary rush hour traffic in the city. All freeways were open, and all main

thoroughfares were also open. Limiting speech to only one demonstration on any day is

also unduly restrictive. It is the obligation of authorities to provide sufficient police

protection, and if more police are required more can be obtained from neighboring cities or

the National Guard could be called in to maintain order. That is what was done during civil

rights demonstrations. The permit requirement and first-come-first-serve provision was just

such a provision used in the Southern states to prevent civil rights groups from protesting.

The local racist Sheriff could have his friends file for a bogus permit and thus prevent a

lawful demonstration from ever occurring.

Brandon Broomfield

My name is Brandon Broomfield. I am a resident of Metropolis. I participated in the

peaceful demonstration that occurred on July 5th. When counter-demonstrators began

physically assaulting me and many of my fellow protesters, I fought back. A huge fight

ensued and I was seriously injured and spent time in the hospital. I can say without

qualification that none of the demonstrators provoked violence. Our mere presence seemed

to be enough excuse for counter-demonstrators to attack us.

MOCK TRIAL JURY ANALYSIS

Each group acting as a jury will concentrate on two things: 1) evaluating the evidence

presented, and 2) achieving a consensus decision.

I. Evaluating the evidence

A. Credibility: discuss whether the evidence and information from both sides in this

trial are believable and reliable. Which side has the most credible evidence?

Evaluate the main pieces of evidence. Be prepared to defend your conclusion with

specific examples.

B. Relevance: is all the evidence presented relevant to the claims made? Was there

any irrelevant evidence or information presented? Be prepared to provide examples.

C. Currency: was there any evidence and information presented either before or during

the trial that was not current? Does it matter?

D. Representativeness: was there any evidence or information presented that was

unrepresentative—didn’t seem typical of the plaintiff, the accused, or the police

officers involved?

E. Sufficiency: did the plaintiff meet its burden of proof by providing sufficient

evidence to warrant receiving a monetary settlement? If yes, list the key

evidence that was sufficient for your finding. If no, in what ways did the

plaintiff fall short?

II. Consensus—follow the steps

A. Establish and maintain a cooperative group climate—avoid defensive

communication patterns and use supportive communication patterns.

B. Discuss all concerns of group members and attempt to resolve every issue.

C. Avoid adversarial, win-lose arguments. Don’t stubbornly argue for a position.

Discuss differences of opinion calmly and approach this activity as a problem to be

solved, not a contest to be won.

D. Avoid conflict-suppressing techniques such as coin flipping or swapping. Seek

differences of opinion, don’t squash conflict.

E. Request a “stand aside” from a team member if he/she is the only one preventing

consensus (unanimity). A stand aside means a group member continues to have

reservations about the group decision, but, when confronted, does not wish to block

the group preference.

F. If consensus is impossible, seek a supermajority (at least two-thirds majority vote).

This should come only after unanimity cannot be achieved.

IV. “Brainstorming” exercise

A. Purpose: To acquaint participants with the brainstorming technique for

generating creative ideas in groups.

B. Time required: 25-30 minutes

C. Instructions:

1. Pick a campus problem (e.g., parking, cost of textbooks).

2. Define the problem, offer information explaining why the problem

exists, and indicate the effects of the problem. Some printed material

on the problem could be disseminated for students to read.

3. Tell students one class period in advance of group brainstorming to

generate individual lists of ideas for solving the problem. Have each

student bring his or her list of ideas to class.

4. Divide the class into groups (5-7 members–doesn’t have to be

term groups).

5. Explain the guidelines for brainstorming.

6. Task for groups: generate ideas for solving the campus problem.

7. After 15 minutes of brainstorming, using individual lists as a

launching point, give groups 5-10 minutes to decide what is their best

idea, worst idea, and most humorous idea.

8. Have one member of each group report to the class how many ideas

they generated, then their best, worst, and most humorous ideas.

D. Processing the exercise

1. Explain when to use brainstorming in the Standard Agenda format.

2. Discuss the merits and demerits of brainstorming as a procedure for

generating creative ideas.

VARIATION: Use the “Straw Bridge” exercise in Chapter 6 as a problem-solving task.

V. “Egg Drop” exercise

NOTE: This exercise can be used here or later as a part of “The Power Carnival”

A. Purposes:

1. To demonstrate reframing process of creative problem solving

2. To demonstrate the value of examining possible negative outcomes

for solutions (Murphy’s Law).

3. To show the advisability of exploring the nature of the problem

before devising solutions.

4. To again emphasize that cooperation (sharing resources) can work

better than competition (hoarding limited resources).

B. Time required: 45 minutes

C. Instructions:

1. Divide class into groups of 5-7 members. Each group chooses an

uncooked egg.

2. Display the following materials: paper in 2 separate sets of 3 sheets

per set (different colors per set work well), a set of 4 index cards

(3 by 5), 2 rolls of scotch tape in dispensers, two yard-long strands of

twine or string, one set of 6 rubber bands in a paper envelope, a letter-size

envelope with about a dozen large paper clips in the envelope; 1 piece

of cardboard (8″ by 11″), 2 manila file folders, and 1 set of flex straws

(6 in the set).

3. Task: protect an egg from cracking when dropped from two stories

landing on pavement below. (Many colleges have walkways on

second stories of classroom buildings. Three stories would make an

even bigger challenge). The egg must be dropped by one member of

the group starting at chest high and it must be a free fall (no strings

attached to the protected egg to ease it down slowly). No one may

catch the egg; it must hit the ground unobstructed with whatever

protection that surrounds it.

4. Groups must bid for materials (see #2) in order to accumulate the

necessary items to protect their egg from breaking. Each group is

given 30 points. Begin bidding on any one of the items (paper,

cardboard etc.). The team that bids the highest number points gets the

resource. Keep a running total of each group’s points until points or

resources have been exhausted. No group may bid more points than

it has. Auctioning off the resources assures that each group will

have different resources to work with, thus requiring different

solutions to the problem.

5. Allow groups 5 minutes to discuss possible solutions to the problem

and what items they will need to bid on to execute their plan before

items are auctioned.

6. Groups will have 20 minutes to plan and execute their plans to

protect their egg.

7. Take groups to the chosen place to test their solutions–a member

from each group, in turn, drops the protected egg to see if it breaks,

cracks, or remains unscathed.

D. Processing the exercise

1. This exercise requires groups to brainstorm possible solutions to the

problem before choosing one. What often happens, however, is that

one or two members just start wrapping the egg, taping it, or

whatever without thoroughly discussing alternatives–an ineffective

problem solving technique.

2. Groups must engage in reframing as a creative problem solving

technique. The materials auctioned off to protect the egg are not

normally used for such a purpose. Group members must think of

these resources in completely different ways than normal

(reframing).

3. One common error made by groups is that they do not fully discuss

what could go wrong with their solution (Murphy’s Law). Without

such discussion, serious flaws may be overlooked until it is too late

(time expires). Weighing the drawbacks of a solution as well as the

merits is step #5 of the Standard Agenda (see text).

4. Groups usually don’t think to cooperate and share resources

(swapping a piece of paper for a half-piece of cardboard, for instance,

or some tape for a 3″ by 5″ index card). The lesson of cooperation can

again be reinforced here by pointing out that creative problem

solving requires that groups think beyond inferences (e.g., facilitator

won’t allow sharing since resources were auctioned off).

VI. Show the TED talk by Tim Brown of IDEO on creativity, available at:

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play?language=en

VII. “Abandon Ship” exercise (co-authored by Jack Turner)

A. Purposes:

1. To provide an opportunity for groups to use The Standard Agenda decision-

making process, with emphasis on the use of criteria.

2. To give groups experience using consensus decision making

3. To engage in a discussion of the merits and demerits of different group decision-

making methods.

4. To introduce discussion of ethics in group decision making.

5. To introduce value conflicts in group decision making.

B. Time required: 50-75 minutes (depending on version used). Short version shows

about 20 minutes starting with the captain dying and being set adrift and the next

highest ranking officer (Alec Holmes) taking over command of the boat. Class then

spends about 15 minutes building criteria and selecting survivors and those thrown

overboard. Final 10 minutes is used to process the exercise. Longer version can

show the latter part of the film in which Holmes throws people overboard at the

point of a gun.

C. Instructions:

1. Get a copy of the classic film Abandon Ship. The film is available

on video and can be ordered from amazon.com. This class

activity can be done without showing the film, but it will not have

the dramatic impact.

2. Divide class into small groups (symposium groups are best). Hand

out the materials describing the actual situation, the descriptions of

each survivor on board the lifeboat, the criteria page, the page for

listing who will be chosen to die and why, and the “decisions to be

made” sheet.

3. Begin showing the film when the Tyrone Power character becomes

captain of the lifeboat (about 20 minutes into the film). Play the next

20-25 minutes of the film. Stop the film. Do not show at this point which

survivors are chosen by the captain.