Syllabus Showcase: Alexandra Bradner, Justice and Care, A Community-based Learning Syllabus

For at least a decade, institutions have been encouraging faculty members to adopt high-impact educational practices in the undergraduate classroom. We are to move away from teaching as “telling” and toward a pedagogical model focused on student-learning, in which we meet students where they are, improve the recall of course content; and spark intellectual engagement. Practically, this has meant that faculty members have been pushed to develop courses with service-learning, community-based learning, project-based learning, team-based learning, flipped-classroom, collaborative-learning, small-group, and independent research components.

On the one hand, this has been a challenge for philosophers, who are wedded to the lecture-discussion format and teach idealized, normative, historical content that is not easily applied to contemporary real-world problems, outside of courses on informal reasoning; the various forms of applied ethics; social-political philosophy; and the philosophy of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. On the other hand, because we attend to the needs of individual students and their ideas when conferencing to develop paper topics and drafts, our best undergraduate courses have been high-impact from the start. Philosophy majors often comment in exit surveys about their close relationships with professors and the ways in which each student is guided through a personalized, interest-driven series of courses. Philosophy is intrinsically high-impact.

The syllabus below is from a community-based learning course which asks students to contrast the justice and care approaches to ethical decision-making. Students read, discuss, and critically analyze the relevant philosophical texts, while experiencing and observing the contrast more viscerally within a community placement. By embedding students for the term within organizations that reveal how the demands of caregiving can be unjust, I hope to raise a question, to which students respond in their written work: Are the two approaches incommensurable (Bradner 2013)? Can we act according to both approaches at the same time? (Can we “do Paracelsian things?” [Hacking 1993: 297].) Can we fulfill needs and, thus, maintain social cohesion, without unfairly taxing individuals? Or does thinking and acting in one way preclude thinking and acting in the other?

On the justice approach, praise and blame accrue to individuals, but the care approach has a different ontology. Individuals are just nodes in networks of care. On the justice approach, we aim to maximize fairness among parties through equal consideration. On the care approach, differences are recognized: at certain times some people’s needs matter more than other people’s needs. Our central aim is to sustain healthy relationships and leave unhealthy ones, which may come at some personal cost. The justice approach emerged, initially, in response to the public struggles of white men, all of whom share some same essential feature, while an intersectional approach to care takes seriously the private, lived experiences of mothers, babies, girlfriends, and daughters — of various particular ethnicities, nationalities, and sexual orientations — who so often view themselves as thoroughly connected to other people and reasonably encumbered because of that.

I have offered this course several times as both a first-year and upper-class seminar to some success, because it is focused and memorable. Just as students think on their own about the existence of God and climate change, they are familiar with fairness and caregiving. They enter the class interested in the topic, absent the philosophical background required to grasp whatever tension exists between the two approaches. But the motivating contrast soon becomes clear. By the end of the course, their lay understanding has deepened and crystalized in application, in response to the powerful community projects. A heavily scaffolded final paper requires students to synthesize theory and practice by placing some relevant course text in conversation with a distinctive field experience. Students prepare to write their individual papers, in part, by joining with their project group to give a 20-minute presentation about the tensions between justice and care that they observed in the community.

To aid the Center for New Beginnings domestic violence shelter, students visited local law offices to develop a list of attorneys willing to do pro-bono work for shelter residents. At SPARK, a daycare facility for adults with cognitive challenges, students helped clients create and produce an internal newsletter. At My Place To Be, a Saturday morning program for families living with autism, students assisted with a drama class and a final play for children on the spectrum, while parents met in a separate room to share resources and support. At the Salvation Army Northeast Ohio Learning Zone, students created a handbook of after-school activities for staff to use when lesson planning for the center’s after-school program. Finally, at the Pine Kirk Care Center, students worked on small craft projects with indigent seniors suffering from cognitive differences. The placements were carefully selected in consultation with community partners and my institution’s service learning center to fulfill genuine, serviceable community needs and to put small groups of students in contexts in which they might observe firsthand the conflicts between what is fair and what someone needs, what someone deserves and what is someone’s responsibility. It’s not fair when a parent suddenly has to change course to care for a child with special needs, but when parents fulfill such responsibilities, networks of care are sustained and strengthened.

Community-based learning/curricular service learning (CBL/CSL) courses are notoriously labor-intensive for faculty and students. First-time instructors encounter a steep learning curve. So, before presenting my syllabus, I’ve listed a few recommendations, based upon my own experiences, in hopes of helping readers avoid some of my early mistakes. For additional inspiration and assistance in developing philosophy courses with high-impact components, purchase and explore Julinna Oxley and Ramona Ilea’s rich collection of essays, Experiential Learning in Philosophy (Routledge 2015).

Recommendations for Philosophy Teachers when Designing CBL/CSL Courses

Please consider the following suggestions, divided into four sections below, when planning your first CBL/CSL course. Veteran CBL/CSL instructors are encouraged to add their own suggestions in the comments section below this post.

Section One: Manage expectations

• Persuade your registrar to create a special transcript designation to alert students that your course will have an external component.
• After you have identified appropriate community partners, in consultation with your CBL/CSL center, and determined that your class might be able to fulfill your partners’ needs, travel in person to your site at least 2-3 times before the term begins to see where your students will be working, assess the site staff, and help your partners think about what to expect from your students.
• Remind students on the first day of class that the community work is a required course element and describe in detail how the community projects will operate.
• People with cognitive challenges often form immediate and strong attachments to the students, who then feel terrible that they cannot respond to frequent text messages, etc. Students can find themselves in the position of feeling unfairly taxed by their responsibilities to their new acquaintances, which aligns with the course content. But, you don’t want anyone to get hurt, especially local community members who are comparably vulnerable. Reasonable boundaries that work for both populations should be established early on in consultation with the site supervisor.
• Forgive yourself before the course even begins. Few things will go perfectly the first time around. Steel yourself to the reality that you will be learning from your evals.

Section Two: Finesse scheduling and logistics

• CBL/CSL courses work best when a three-hour “lab” time is scheduled in addition to a typical philosophy class that meets twice a week for 90 minutes. Schedule at least as many lab options as you have community partners. Without a scheduled lab time, it will be impossible to arrange for even small groups of busy students to be free at the same time on a regular basis. A scheduled lab time will make it possible for students to visit their site once during the week and once on the weekend.
• Ideally, 3-5 students will be working together at each site at the same time. Any more and they huddle together, instead of dispersing themselves. Any less, and travel issues and like problems can be scary for them. It is much simpler to have the whole class working at the same site in small groups at different times, but it is difficult to locate a partner who can take in a whole class, and a plurality of placements can improve in-class discussion.
• There would be nothing worse than a car accident on a snowy drive to a site, a student unintentionally harming a child, an intoxicated student embarrassing your institution, or a series of no-shows. Anticipate disasters and pre-empt accordingly. Institutions are at various stages of figuring out their insurance situations in regard to official, off-campus, academic activities. Before you initiate a CBL/CSL course, be sure that your institution is ready to take on those risks on your behalf.
• CBL/CSL courses are much easier to plan when the students are working with adults, instead of with children or other vulnerable populations, because no special permissions or arrangements are required.
• Schedule CBL/CSL courses for your lightest teaching and service terms, and at least one full year away from a review.
• You cannot assume that your students will have their own transportation to the sites. If students will be taking public transportation, you must build both the travel time and the fare/gas expenses into the course in the form of additional required course materials.
• All on-site, end-of-term capstone activities (like plays, presentations, etc.) must be scheduled before the course begins and confirmed during the first week of class with the students.
• Set up a mechanism through which you will have steady communication throughout the term with your community partners — at least one 10-minute conversation every two weeks. Once you have established a viable project and a good relationship with a community partner, you can return term after term without any learning-curve or startup effort. Your projects will evolve.

Section Three: Balance and integrate community work with course content

• Survey courses do not work well as CBL/CSL courses, because the extra time on-site eclipses too much course content. The best CBL/CSL courses are topical and address a single, targeted question. Select a topic that can be studied responsibly in two-thirds of a standard academic term.
• Your community projects should be as narrow and manageable your academic content. Meet with your CBL/CSL office or community partners to determine what your community needs and which of those needs align with your learning goals. Do not descend upon your community partners expecting them to accommodate you.
• Select small projects that students can complete within a single term. Be as focused in your projects as you were with your course content. Form should fit function. By the end of the term, your students should be able to see the wisdom in your project assignments. Your students are not simply volunteering in the community for credit. They are completing a specific project selected by you for a good reason to enliven and complicate the course content.
• In order to compensate students (and yourself) for the extra work associated with CBL/CSL courses, incorporate three cancelled class sessions or “service reimbursements” into the syllabus. Students often use this time to meet with their project groups to plan the final presentation.
• Plan to spend 30 minutes each week in class dealing with emergent logistical and interpersonal problems, with additional time scheduled for pre-assigned reporting about the on-site work.
• Many of your community partners will ask for your syllabus, readings, and time, as they become intrigued with your course content and with philosophy in general. This can be an exciting opportunity for public philosophy and often leads to additional projects and community engagements. But it will consume more of your time.

Section Four: Attend closely to student learning

• CBL/CSL courses are usually engaging and topical, so they work well as first-year seminars. First-year students also have relatively open schedules, because they are not yet campus leaders. But CBL/CSL courses also work well as upper-level seminars. Older students are better at handling the logistical complexities; they communicate more naturally with their onsite supervisors; and they tend to know more about the community.
• Create a packet of course – specific handouts for your students at the start of the term: “What to Expect from a Community-based Learning Course,” “How to Write a Field Report,” “Getting to and from Your Site,” “Representing Your School,” “Working with Vulnerable Populations,” Etc.
• The assignment structure should include: (a) several typical philosophy assignments early in the term, in order to ensure that students process the readings, (b) a way for students to record and reflect upon their site work, so they can recall important details for larger assignments, and (c) capstone opportunities for students to synthesize theory and practice.
• Students must be held accountable for their site work, especially given that you won’t be with them, but you should minimize busy work. I require students to write 1-2-paragraph (125-word) ungraded field reports based upon six questions every time they return from a site. I also ask the community partner at the end of the term to write a one-paragraph evaluation of each student’s performance.
• CBL/CSL courses are new and unusual. Your students will need a lot of guidance when they are refining their final paper topics and writing their papers. Many will never before have developed an original paper topic, and even fewer will have written a paper synthesizing theory and practice. The capstone assignment should be heavily scaffolded. (Mine has four stages detailed below.) Reserve a fair amount of time to conceive and write the final assignment handout.

So, at this point, you’re probably thinking, ‘This sounds like an awful lot of thankless, invisible work. Students should be spending their class time (and tuition dollars) reading philosophy, instead of volunteering. And my P&T committee is going to be just as impressed with glowing evals from my typical courses as it would be with glowing evals from a CBL/CSL course. Why do it?’

Well, it’s not for everyone. Classroom innovation won’t land a job or secure tenure, at most places. And, importantly, it’s not for every philosophy course. To feel good about a CBL/CSL course, you have to see philosophy as an activity that has some utility beyond the sphere of reflection, beyond a pair of armchairs. You have to be Jamesian in your teaching — willing to experiment and fail, in hopes of discovering something terrific. And you have to view the collegiate professor’s job as one that extends beyond any single institutional gate. In my opinion, a strong philosophy department should offer one or two representative CBL/CSL courses (and that’s it), in the spirit of introducing students to all of the many ways we think about and practice philosophy.

My syllabus follows. I welcome, in the comments section below, any advice you might have to improve the course design and/or update the reading list.

The Syllabus

[Seminar for 12-15 students. Multiply listed in first-year studies, philosophy, and women’s and gender studies. Meets twice a week for 1.5 hours.]

 The (In)Justice of Entanglement: Introduction to the Ethics of Care

A Community-based Learning Course

Alexandra Bradner, Ph.D.

Kenyon College

I will invent a morality that condones me.

—Carol Gilligan (quoting from Margaret Drabble’s The Waterfall, 1969)

Experience is not what happens to a man;

it is what a man does with what happens to him.

—Aldous Huxley, Texts and Pretexts: An Anthology with Commentaries, 1932

Course Description

We might want to live in a just society, one in which scarce goods are distributed fairly to all members. But we might also want to live in a benevolent society, one in which genuine needs are fulfilled, regardless of whether we have to tread on other people in order to fulfill those needs. Feminist ethicists of care champion benevolence.

The ethics of care suggests that the modernist notion of the individual as a discrete, bounded metaphysical locus is a historical, anthrocentric, and misogynist artifact. Rights, responsibilities, praise, and blame should not accrue to single persons, but to small groups attached to one another through relations of dependence and care. We might even abandon justice-talk entirely. Collectives — like nations, communities and families — might aim for kindness exclusively, over equality and fairness. Reconstituting our socio-political ontology in these ways would force a revaluation, a radical revisioning of our identities, labor practices, and social structures.

We will start our course by examining the justice/care debate as it was framed in the modern period by Hume and Kant. We will then trace Kant’s justice view through the more contemporary work of John Rawls and Lawrence Kohlberg. In critique of Kohlberg, we will read Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice in its entirety — a now canonical contribution to the ethics of care (if dated from within the field of psychology). We then will pursue the care approach through the contemporary work of Nel Noddings and Sarah Ruddick, study extensions and internal critiques by Alison Jaggar and Patricia Hill Collins, and explore applications to big business, healthcare, and the environment by Virginia Held, Robert Solomon, and others.

As a course in curricular service-learning, this seminar will offer a unique intellectual opportunity. Students will process readings viscerally by entering into their own relationships of dependence and care with community partners — groups whose needs might clash with our collegiate schedules and priorities. In other words, as an empirical source of reflection and critique, we will take our abstract understanding of care theory and bring it to the community by working on a collection of community projects, thus transferring some of our institution’s resources to other organizations on the simple ground that these organizations have a need. Students who enroll in this course should be prepared to spend, on average, an extra 3-4 hours a week coordinating, conducting, and reflecting upon their service project.

Required Materials

1) In a Different Voice, 6th edition, by Carol Gilligan (Harvard, 1993). DV

2) An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Mary Jeanne Larabee (Routledge, 1993). EC

3) Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics, edited by Virginia Held (Westview, 1995). JC

4) The Bedford Handbook (Bedford/St.Martin’s, 2016).

5) Our Moodle site, which you should use to check for syllabus updates, handouts, assignments, announcements, and interesting links.

Content Objectives

• To become familiar with the historical texts that ground the justice and care approaches, and trace the influence of those texts into the contemporary literature.
• To master the arguments for and against the justice and care perspectives, with an emphasis on the care perspective, and to determine whether the two approaches are incommensurable or reconcilable.
• To critically reflect upon the many ways in which the ethics of care has been applied beyond mothering contexts and consider whether ethical decision-making is or should be “feminine” or “masculine.”
• To begin to consider, through our practice of “discipline-reflective” service learning, the many ways in which philosophers might start to employ their theoretical knowledge in the service of their communities, both locally and globally, and to reflect upon the ways in which you might connect your classroom experiences to your personal ones.

Skill Objectives

• To learn, through homework readings and written objections, how to distinguish a thesis from a mere topic, map the argument for that thesis, and criticize the argument critically and charitably.
• To improve collegiate writing skills — not necessarily in terms of grammar, word usage or style —but in terms of the ability to structure and organize an academic paper. We will be writing on a weekly basis in this course. Students should come to view writing as a way of digesting and processing material, rather than simply reporting on it.
• To improve collegiate speaking skills, specifically, how to think about one’s in-class comments before making them, listen to other students, and contribute substantively to a discussion by both defending one’s views and raising good questions.
• To begin to find a unique critical voice, that is, to begin to formulate and develop your own arguments, rather than merely summarizing other people’s work.
• To work effectively as both a member and leader of a group by compromising, participating, planning, and, at times, refusing.

Contact Information

Please feel free to contact me any time by e-mail, office phone, or cell phone. Our one-on-one discussions about your ideas are an important part of this course. I am child of the 80s, so you will reach me fastest by e-mail. My office hours are Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but you can always schedule an appointment to meet in person or via Skype/Facetime, if you’re busy during those times. My mailbox is in the philosophy department office.

Course Requirements (in three parts)

PART ONE: THEORETICAL WORK IN PHILOSOPHY (55%)

In-class participation (15%)

• 5% will be determined by the instructor.
• 5% will be determined by your attendance. For each class absence after two, your attendance grade will drop. If you miss more than one of your fieldwork obligations, or if you miss any of your fieldwork obligations for an unexcused reason (thus inconveniencing your organization’s administrator), you will fail the attendance element of the participation grade. [Institutional statement]
• 5% will be determined by your peers. College students learn a great deal from their peers, so a high mark from them is a reliable indication of good in-class participation.

Note: In each of the three categories above, students can earn one of three possible in-class participation grades: A, C, or F, for excellent, average, and below average class participation respectively.

Excellent class participation involves the consistent demonstration of exceptional critical thinking skills, clear engagement with the course material, and mature classroom behavior (respecting and listening to your peers, etc.).

Average participation involves consistently demonstrating completion of the homework reading and mature classroom behavior.

Below average participation involves disrupting class in any way or failing to contribute analysis of and/or objections to the homework readings.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the participation grade. My aim is to create a course element that fairly rewards engagement and helps to develop collegiate speaking skills.

Four objections to the homework readings (10%)

On select days, as listed in the syllabus, students will bring to class a short paragraph (4-6 sentences) that raises a meaningful objection to any argument found in the homework reading. Please do not forget to cite the argument or section of the text to which you are referring. After trading objections at the start of class, another student will write (and sign) an objection to your objection or share a relevant field experience. After trading back, you will respond to your partner’s objection in writing and submit the whole sequence to me for a feedback grade.

This goal of this 20-minute exercise is to help students prepare to write longer essays. Objections will be graded with check minus, check, and check plus grades and curved at the end of the term. This is an in-class assignment that would be difficult to make up in the case of an absence.

First critical essay on Gilligan and her critics (15%)

4-6 typewritten pages

Second critical essay on contemporary objections to the ethics of care (15%)

4-6 typewritten pages

PART TWO: FIELD WORK IN THE COMMUNITY (25%)

Community work (pass/fail)

All students must complete 35-40 hours of community work on site at one of our three community partners. Three class periods have been cancelled in order to reimburse students for a portion of this time.

Weekly field reports (pass/fail)

Regular journal entries of 125 words each to help you keep track of the details of your field work, so you have recorded material upon which to draw for your final papers.

Third essay on a significant field experience (15%)

Pass/fail          Site administrator assessment

5%                 Self and peer assessment

10%               Field experience essay

Presentation to the class on the group community project (10%)

Reflective, 20-minute presentation of your group’s community work to the class, noting connections to the readings, when relevant.

PART THREE: SYNTHESIZING THEORY AND PRACTICE (20%)

Capstone paper (20%)

In-depth essay (8-10 pages) synthesizing theory and practice, incorporating both a close reading of one of our course texts and a relevant field experience.

Pass/fail          Proposal draft

5%                 Finished proposal

Pass/fail          Proposal conference with instructor, Optional draft

15%               Final paper

Submission Policies

Late papers will be marked down one third of a grade (ex. B+ to B) for every business and/or weekend day late. All regular assignments must be completed by the last day of the semester, in order to pass this course.

When you submit an assignment, please anonymize your work and submit it electronically to the appropriate portal on Moodle. It is your responsibility to ensure that I receive a readable copy of each of your assignments by the submission deadline.

Accommodations Statement

[Institutional statement]

Academic Honesty Statement

[Institutional statement]

It has been my experience that students know exactly what constitutes plagiarism, so when I find it, I assume the act was intentional, unless I become otherwise convinced, and pursue the harshest penalty possible under our institution’s academic code. If you have any questions about plagiarism, please refer to the English department guide “Writing with Sources” or contact me. Plagiarism is short-sighted, lazy, contrary to our purpose, and wrong. 

Writing Center Information

[Institutional statement and hours]

Academic Support Information 

[Institutional statement and hours]

Class Atmosphere

Our class on campus will consist primarily of short lectures and discussions — both of the readings and your service experiences. Please attend ready to report on your community involvement, dissect the reading, raise relevant questions, and suggest interesting objections.

In the field, you will be working 4-6 hours/week with a small group of classmates under the supervision of a site administrator to complete a semester-long project related to our readings. When you are on-site off campus, in your energy, behavior, initiative, and dress, you will be representing our institution, the philosophy department, and me. Make us proud.

Schedule

The following schedule tells you which reading is due each class day. We will not read all of the selections in our books, so please check below for the assignments. Some reading assignments will be difficult. Try to identify the thesis of each selection and determine whether you agree with the arguments presented for that thesis. Bring any comprehension questions you have to class.

TOPICS, readings and assignments

Week 1: Tuesday

INTRODUCTION: JUSTICE, CARE AND GENDER

Course mechanics: Why community-based learning?

Complete the college’s defensive driving course by the first Friday of the term.

Week 1: Thursday

THE PHILOSOPHY OF JUSTICE

Read Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, selections (Moodle pdf)

Week 2: Tuesday

Read Rawls’s “Justice as Fairness” (Moodle pdf)

Sample objection distributed

Community projects underway

Week 2: Thursday

Read Kohlberg’s “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Development” (Moodle pdf)

First objection due on Rawls

Week 3: Tuesday

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CARE: IN A DIFFERENT VOICE

Read Gilligan’s DV, chapters 1-2

Week 3: Thursday

Read Gilligan’s DV, chapters 3-4

Week 4: Tuesday

Read Gilligan’s DV, chapters 4-6

Second objection due on Gilligan

First critical essay assignment distributed

Week 4: Thursday

HUMEAN SOURCES

Read Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals” (selections) and “Of the Original Contract” (Moodle pdf)

Week 5: Tuesday

Read Baier’s “The Need for More than Justice” (JC)

Week 5: Thursday

Read Baier’s “What Do Women Want in a Moral Theory?” (EC)

Third objection due on Hume or Baier

Week 6: Tuesday

Read Flanagan and Jackson’s “Justice, Care, and Gender: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Debate Revisited” (EC)

First critical essay due

Week 6: Thursday

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CARE

Read Blum’s “Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for Moral Theory” (EC)

Week 7: Tuesday

NO CLASS — SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 1

Week 7: Thursday

Read Noddings’s “Caring” (JC)

Second critical essay assignment distributed

Week 8: Tuesday

Read Tronto’s “Women and Caring: What Can Feminists Learn from Morality about Caring?” (JC)

Week 8: Thursday

Read Kerber’s “Some Cautionary Words for Historians” (EC)

Fourth objection due

SPRING BREAK

Week 9: Tuesday

INTERSECTIONAL ACCOUNTS OF CARE

Read Hill Collins’s “Black Women and Motherhood” (JC)

Second critical essay due

Week 9: Thursday

Read Tronto’s “Beyond Gender Difference to a Theory of Care” (EC),

Week 10: Tuesday

CARE IN PRIVATE: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Read Friedman’s “Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender” (JC)

Third essay assignment distributed

Week 10: Thursday

NO CLASS — SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 2

Week 11: Tuesday

Read Card’s “Gender and Moral Luck” (JC)

Fifth objection due

Week 11: Thursday

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH

Read Jaggar’s “Caring as a Feminist Practice of Moral Reason” (JC)

Final paper and presentation assignments distributed

Week 12: Tuesday

Read Ruddick’s “Injustice in Families: Assault and Domination” (JC)

Third essay due

Week 12: Thursday

APPLICATIONS: BUSINESS ETHICS

Read Liedtka’s “Feminist Morality and Competitive Reality: A Role for an Ethic of Care?” and Solomon’s “The Moral Psychology of Business: Care and Compassion in the Corporation” (Moodle pdfs)

Proposal draft due

Week 13: Tuesday

APPLICATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Read Curtin’s “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care” and King, “Caring about Nature: Feminist Ethics and the Environment” (Moodle pdf)

Week 13: Thursday

NO CLASS — SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 3

Final proposal due

Week 14: Tuesday

GROUP SERVICE PRESENTATIONS

Week 14: Thursday

GROUP SERVICE PRESENTATIONS

Read Held’s “Feminist Moral Inquiry and the Feminist Future” (JC)

Final exam week

Final paper due

The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project.  Please email sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org to nominate yourself or a colleague.