Week 12 Discussion — One Name or Many?

Hook

A name on a door tells people who belongs inside. A story told as praise can still leave people out. This week you read the 1965 law that reopened immigration, the students who coined "Asian American" in 1968, the model-minority image, refugee resettlement, and the history of Native Hawaiians from the overthrow to the apology.

Your driving question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: An illustrative campus is opening a new cultural center and has to name it. One group of students proposes the Asian American Center. A second proposes the Asian American and Pacific Islander Center. A third proposes a shared building with separate, named rooms, one of them for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students. Which name or plan would you choose, and why? Use what the term Asian American was coined to do in 1968, the course rule that Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are named as their own group, and the difference between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples, and give the strongest case for a plan you did not choose.

Option B: An illustrative hospital newsletter wants to celebrate a nurse whose family came to the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, one sponsorship at a time. The draft headline reads "A Model Family: Proof That Hard Work Is All It Takes." Can a family's success story be told without reproducing the model-minority image, and if so, how would you rewrite the headline and the first two sentences? Use the field's three-part critique (the image flattens many communities into one, hides poverty and discrimination within them, and is used to blame other groups) and what the 1965 law's preferences did, and give the strongest case for the newsletter's original framing.

There is no single right answer. A shared name can build a coalition and still blur a history, and a success story can honor a family and still carry a stereotype; where you land depends on whom you are naming and what the telling leaves out.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 12 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Describe people by their roles rather than their names, keep documented history plain, never state a stereotype as a fact, and do not ask a chatbot to invent a figure, a date, or a quotation for you or for any real person or community.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory, comparative ethnic
studies course. Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the
question below. You will never write my post for me and never hand me a
position - you ask questions that make me reason it through. Never invent a
statistic, a study, a date, or a quotation for any real person or community,
and never cite an income, test-score, health, or wealth figure for any group.
Documented history (the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, the
annexation in 1898, the 1993 apology) is stated plainly, never as "both
sides". Treat the model-minority image as a stereotype to examine, never as a
description of any group. Give no opinion on any current political question,
current immigration or refugee policy, any current debate about how data on
groups should be reported, or any living politician, party, or commentator.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: An illustrative campus is opening a new cultural center and has to
name it. One group of students proposes the Asian American Center. A second
proposes the Asian American and Pacific Islander Center. A third proposes a
shared building with separate, named rooms, one of them for Native Hawaiian
and Pacific Islander students. Which name or plan would you choose, and why?
Use what the term Asian American was coined to do in 1968, the course rule
that Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are named as their own group, and
the difference between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated
peoples, and give the strongest case for a plan you did not choose.
Option B: An illustrative hospital newsletter wants to celebrate a nurse whose
family came to the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1965, one sponsorship at a time. The draft headline reads "A Model Family:
Proof That Hard Work Is All It Takes." Can a family's success story be told
without reproducing the model-minority image, and if so, how would you rewrite
the headline and the first two sentences? Use the field's three-part critique
(the image flattens many communities into one, hides poverty and
discrimination within them, and is used to blame other groups) and what the
1965 law's preferences did, and give the strongest case for the newsletter's
original framing.

COURSE TERMS I SHOULD USE ACCURATELY: Asian American (the political and cultural term coined in 1968 by the founding
members of the Asian American Political Alliance to join communities with different histories); Native Hawaiians (the
Indigenous people of the Hawaiian Islands, a colonized or incorporated people who became part of the United States
through annexation in 1898, named as their own group); the model-minority image (the stereotype that pictures Asian
Americans as one group that succeeded through its own effort and needs no help; Petersen (1966) is usually credited
with popularizing it); the field's three-part critique (it flattens many communities into one, hides poverty and
discrimination within them, and is used to blame other groups); the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
(abolished the national-origins quota system and gave preference to family reunification and to skilled workers);
immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders named as their own
  group instead of folding them into Asian American
- whether I say what the term Asian American was coined to do and what a
  shared name can blur
- whether I apply at least one part of the three-part critique to specific
  words, not to the topic in general
- whether I give the other plan or framing its strongest case
- whether I can say what evidence or whose voice would change my view

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first
content question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue
without pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due,
ask once more; if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent
a name. Ask ONE question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words
without praising agreement or calling every reply "great." Probe unsupported
claims and introduce the strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific,
earned move I actually made, such as revising a claim or meeting the
counterpoint. Never accept a one-word reply - ask again, differently. Never
lecture. Every message you send before the summary ends with a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word reply is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 12 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — analyzing Asian American and Pacific Islander experiences after 1965, examining the model-minority image as a stereotype, and using this week's terms accurately — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Take up Option A or Option B. For Option A, say which name or plan you would choose for the center, and say what it does for Asian American students and for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students. For Option B, say whether the story can be told without the model-minority image, and write your new headline and first two sentences. Use this week's terms correctly.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, that one shared name builds a bigger coalition, or that families are proud of their hard work and want it honored. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your response to it (roughly 100 words). Meet that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). What record, or whose voices, would you want to hear before settling it?

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 12 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com