Week 2 Discussion — Which Level, Which Question? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A teacher calls on some students less often without noticing. A workplace bans a hairstyle common in one group. A form asks you to check a box that may not fit. This week you learned to tell an attitude from an action, one person's act from an organization's rule, and a category people made from a fact of biology, so you can now take a position on cases that are not simple.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Pick one of two borderline cases from the illustrative concept-sorting set: (1) a teacher who calls on students of one group less often without noticing, or (2) a workplace dress code that bans a hairstyle common in one group. Is it best read as individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, or structural inequality? Take a position, give your reason, and name the one fact about the case that would change your mind.
Option B: Find a real form that asks about race, ethnicity, or nationality, such as a job application, a clinic intake sheet, a school or team sign-up, or a survey. You never need to share your own answers. Which of the three questions (race, ethnicity, or nationality) are its boxes really asking? Who made the form, whom does it serve, and what does it leave out? Would you change it, and what would your change gain and cost?
There is no single right answer. Careful readers sort the borderline cases differently, and a form can be read and redesigned in more than one defensible way. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, name the case and the level you think fits best; for Option B, describe the form and say which question its boxes are really asking.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (race, ethnicity, nationality, racialization, racial formation, ethnocentrism, prejudice, discrimination, individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, structural inequality, intersectionality, the federal categories) correctly.
- Give your reason, and name the strongest case for a different reading.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Describe a real form if you choose Option B, and never post anyone's personal information. You never need to share your own answers on any form.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: argue for a level the poster did not choose, ask whether a rule would still produce the result if everyone involved were fair-minded, or point out a question a form's boxes blur. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A, the dress code. I read it as institutional discrimination. The rule is written down and applied to every employee, and it bans a hairstyle common in one group, so it produces unequal treatment even if the person who wrote it meant no harm. The strongest case against me is that one manager chose the wording, which sounds like individual discrimination. I would change my mind if the code were never enforced and only one manager acted on it.
Notice how it names a level, ties the reason to the definition, states the strongest objection, and says what would change the writer's mind. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Strong | Developing | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position on one case or one real form, with a reason tied to who or what produces the unequal result or to what the form asks and leaves out | A position is present, but the level or the reading is asserted without a reason | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeping attitude apart from action, an act apart from a rule, and race apart from ethnicity and nationality | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com