• In this module students reflect on the revisions they made in papers, with comments from teachers.

    Why?

    Understanding how and why others revised their writing can help you gain power in revising your own writing.

    How?

    Click the four “LearnIt” tabs to read students reflecting on their revisions and to see teacher comments.

  • draft

    major revisions

    final paper

    • Ajay

    • Ajay's teacher

    • Hello. I am Ajay.

      I’ve worked hard on this paper, and I am happy to share it with you. I made many big revisions between my draft and my final version. I learned a lot about organizing a paper by making the revisions that I did.

      To see my biggest revisions, and to learn why I made them, click the numbered buttons to the left. (You can read my draft and final by clicking the little pages.)

      You can also read my teacher’s thoughts on the paper by clicking her picture when you click any of the numbered buttons.

    • My readers let me know that I had unnecessary information in my paper‘s beginning. I described the Total Quality Movement and how that gave rise to the belief that the “customer is always right”—and that’s some history behind how students came to think of themselves as customers.

      But that didn’t contribute at all to my argument. In fact, it got in the way. It was information that didn’t help my argument.

      If you compare my draft’s beginning to my final beginning, you can see how much more direct my revision is. By figuring out I didn’t need that TQM information, I could get more quickly to my main points.

      This made my paper so much easier to read.

    • My teacher pointed out how much I used long quotations to make my points. I was nervous that I could write these points on my own with enough authority. But I had to try.

      And it was hard.

      I had to really go back over all my sources and figure out how to summarize them. I had to make sure that I really understood them.

      But I am so proud of what I could do.

      The writing is so much stronger. By working hard on what mattered to me in my sources, I was able to figure out what mattered to me in my argument. Compare the differently colored passages in the two versions to see what changed: sometimes by summarizing my points become shorter—but sometimes they became longer, as I really figured out what it was I was arguing. (You can really see this in the part about the consequences of thinking of students as customers.)

    • When my readers helped me see how my first had so many long quotations, I realized that I still wasn’t completely clear about what I wanted to argue.

      I took a risk—and took some more time—and went and found more (and better) sources.

      Because I knew I needed to better understand my main points, I was able after my first draft to do very focused searches. I knew the kind of thinking I needed help with, and so was able to find sources like that much quicker.

      Yeah, that added time. But I am proud of myself for having done that. I think I learned a lot from the process.

    • Hi, I’m Ajay’s teacher, Professor Wysocki.

      Ajay impressed me with his hard work on this paper. He stayed with it, even after he received feedback that I know made him realize he might need to put in more time.

      Ajay took his abilities seriously, and he learned a lot from his revisions on this paper.

      I hope you can see just how big the revisions are that Ajay made here.

      Compare the two drafts to see just how much has changed!

    • The first revision Ajay made wasn’t a hard one: He removed a chunk of writing that didn’t help his argument.

      Once he removed the information about TQM, Ajay could see that he had much more room to make his main points—but he could also see that he hadn’t been clear about his main points.

      Even though, then, removing the unnecessary writing didn’t take any time, it helped Ajay see that there was much more to do.

    • I do understand how hard it is not to use quotations.

      When you use quotations because a writer says something in a memorable way, or because readers might know the writer, or because you really do need someone else to help you make a point—then, yes, of course you use a quotation!

      But when you use quotations because you are nervous about putting ideas into your own words—that doesn’t help you learn.

      I think Ajay was able to see why his readers thought he had too many quotations in his first draft. I also think he was able to see how those long quotations got in the way of him being able to make—and to make clearly—his main points.

      Ajay should definitely be happy about how he revised those long quotations and made himself really figure out what mattered to him in this paper.

    • Ajay should be proud of his work in finding new sources.

      I am also very happy to see that he learned that it’s often easier to do a more focused search once you have completed a first draft and then learn you’re not clear about your main points. That may sound odd, but once you understand that you’re not clear about your points, you can often ask quite focused questions about what you’re not clear about!

      After his first draft, I watched Ajay give himself time to think and figure out what his concerns really were—and then I watched him hone in on new sources.

      I applaud his work!

    • Ajay Chaudry
      Professor Wysocki
      English 102
      April 21, 2013
      DRAFT: Are students customers?
      Here is a quotation from a college student:
      Students are most definitely customers. We pay don’t we? And isn’t that one of the
      definitions of a customer: “Someone who pays for a service”? We pay the university for
      the service of teaching classes, so we can attend the classes and earn a degree. (Denning)
      I guess I had never thought about it before, but it was strange when I heard people in my class
      complaining about not getting good grades because they’d paid a lot of money to go to school.
      What does it mean to think of school as a place where we buy something, where we are
      customers?
      According to the dictionary, students learn something, customers buy something. But when I
      read more about “students” and “customers” in academic journals, I learned that what they
      learn and what they buy are very different things—and I realized that most of the time we
      shouldn’t think of students as customers.
      According to my readings, it’s the TQM movement that got people to think of students as
      customers. According to George O. Tasie, TQM started with businesses:
      The total quality management (TQM), born in the 1930s among the management circles
      in the United States and nurtured in post World War II Japanese business and industrial
      communities, has spread rapidly through higher education in various parts of the world
      during the past decade. There is no single theoretical formalization of TQM, but the
      Ajay Chaudry
      Professor Wysocki
      English 102
      April 21, 2013
      DRAFT: Are students customers?
      Here is a quotation from a college student:
      Students are most definitely customers. We pay don’t we? And isn’t that one of the
      definitions of a customer: “Someone who pays for a service”? We pay the university for
      the service of teaching classes, so we can attend the classes and earn a degree. (Denning)
      I guess I had never thought about it before, but it was strange when I heard people in my class
      complaining about not getting good grades because they’d paid a lot of money to go to school.
      What does it mean to think of school as a place where we buy something, where we are
      customers?
      According to the dictionary, students learn something, customers buy something. But when I
      read more about “students” and “customers” in academic journals, I learned that what they
      learn and what they buy are very different things—and I realized that most of the time we
      shouldn’t think of students as customers.
      According to my readings, it’s the TQM movement that got people to think of students as
      customers. According to George O. Tasie, TQM started with businesses:
      The total quality management (TQM), born in the 1930s among the management circles
      in the United States and nurtured in post World War II Japanese business and industrial
      communities, has spread rapidly through higher education in various parts of the world
      during the past decade. There is no single theoretical formalization of TQM, but the
      American quality gurus, Deming and Juran, and the Japanese writer, Ishikawa, provided a
      set of core assumptions and specific principles of management which can be synthesized
      into a coherent framework.… TQM is a business discipline and philosophy of
      management which institutionalizes planned and continuous business improvement. The
      real test of quality management is its ability to satisfy customers in the marketplace.
      (310)
      So that’s how the notion of “student as customer” came into universities and colleges, along with
      some how TQM works: The customer is placed first.
      Some of the articles I read argue that sometimes it is right to think of students as customers.
      “The areas of institutions that conduct discrete business-like transactions—e.g., student
      services, registration, food services, maintenance—do seem amenable to streamlining and
      improvement via TQM methods” (Schwartzman, 216). But most of the articles I read on this
      topic argue that students should not be customers. “Students lack the expertise to judge exactly
      what constitutes quality in a particular subject, although they certainly have the competence to
      recognize degrees of courtesy, promptness, and reliability that generalize across disciplines.”
      (Schwartzman 220)
      When the writers I read argued about what we shouldn’t think of students as customers,
      they started by asking how a student might be a customer. If a student is a customer, what is the
      product a student is buying? Some writers also ask who the customer of education really is.
      But the most important question is how education is like the kind of products we all buy
      every day, like hamburgers or hair products. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t have to do
      anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat it. That’s it.
      But the articles I read argue that an education isn’t consumed all at once—and that students
      American quality gurus, Deming and Juran, and the Japanese writer, Ishikawa, provided a
      set of core assumptions and specific principles of management which can be synthesized
      into a coherent framework.… TQM is a business discipline and philosophy of
      management which institutionalizes planned and continuous business improvement. The
      real test of quality management is its ability to satisfy customers in the marketplace.
      (310)
      So that’s how the notion of “student as customer” came into universities and colleges, along with
      some how TQM works: The customer is placed first.
      Some of the articles I read argue that sometimes it is right to think of students as customers.
      “The areas of institutions that conduct discrete business-like transactions—e.g., student
      services, registration, food services, maintenance—do seem amenable to streamlining and
      improvement via TQM methods” (Schwartzman, 216). But most of the articles I read on this
      topic argue that students should not be customers. “Students lack the expertise to judge exactly
      what constitutes quality in a particular subject, although they certainly have the competence to
      recognize degrees of courtesy, promptness, and reliability that generalize across disciplines.”
      (Schwartzman 220)
      When the writers I read argued about what we shouldn’t think of students as customers,
      they started by asking how a student might be a customer. If a student is a customer, what is the
      product a student is buying? Some writers also ask who the customer of education really is.
      But the most important question is how education is like the kind of products we all buy
      every day, like hamburgers or hair products. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t have to do
      anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat it. That’s it.
      But the articles I read argue that an education isn’t consumed all at once—and that students
      American quality gurus, Deming and Juran, and the Japanese writer, Ishikawa, provided a
      set of core assumptions and specific principles of management which can be synthesized
      into a coherent framework.… TQM is a business discipline and philosophy of
      management which institutionalizes planned and continuous business improvement. The
      real test of quality management is its ability to satisfy customers in the marketplace.
      (310)
      So that’s how the notion of “student as customer” came into universities and colleges, along with
      some how TQM works: The customer is placed first.
      Some of the articles I read argue that sometimes it is right to think of students as customers.
      “The areas of institutions that conduct discrete business-like transactions—e.g., student
      services, registration, food services, maintenance—do seem amenable to streamlining and
      improvement via TQM methods” (Schwartzman, 216). But most of the articles I read on this
      topic argue that students should not be customers. “Students lack the expertise to judge exactly
      what constitutes quality in a particular subject, although they certainly have the competence to
      recognize degrees of courtesy, promptness, and reliability that generalize across disciplines.”
      (Schwartzman 220)
      When the writers I read argued about what we shouldn’t think of students as customers,
      they started by asking how a student might be a customer. If a student is a customer, what is the
      product a student is buying? Some writers also ask who the customer of education really is.
      But the most important question is how education is like the kind of products we all buy
      every day, like hamburgers or hair products. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t have to do
      anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat it. That’s it.
      But the articles I read argue that an education isn’t consumed all at once—and that students
      have to have a part in making an education happen. Many of the articles I read also argue that
      education is a process, not a product:
      Business, typically speaking, is product oriented, although the product is often the
      delivery of a service. Education, by contrast, is process oriented in that it ideally seeks to
      train people to continue to educate themselves. Thus, a high quality experience or
      outcome can really only be assessed well over time and in multiple ways. Consumers
      engage in many discrete transactions, always with an identifiable product or service
      about which they can say, “I bought this.” However, when seeking an education, students
      do not buy a specific product or service external to themselves, except for books and
      supplies. Further, the quantifiable results of education--salary earned, positions
      obtained, rewards gleaned--are not the only objectives here. Rather, our students
      contract with us to be challenged and to exceed their previous intellectual limits. Unlike
      consumers, students never really get an education. They, like all of us, are involved in the
      process of becoming wiser. (Cheney, McMillan, and Schwartzman)
      My sources also argue that learning is very different from consuming because
      Satisfying learners often runs counter to the conditions necessary for learning because
      learning often involves some discomfort, disequilibrium, and challenge. Students learn
      through the cognitive conflicts that occur when they face new points of view, new
      information, and new perspectives. Students learn when they are encouraged to reflect
      actively on the information that is unfamiliar and initially illogical or even threatening. In
      such situations, the dynamic tension created between the known and the new causes
      new thinking, analysis and reevaluation. (Tasie, 312)
      Education is supposed to be uncomfortable because it challenges and changes us. “The teacher
      have to have a part in making an education happen. Many of the articles I read also argue that
      education is a process, not a product:
      Business, typically speaking, is product oriented, although the product is often the
      delivery of a service. Education, by contrast, is process oriented in that it ideally seeks to
      train people to continue to educate themselves. Thus, a high quality experience or
      outcome can really only be assessed well over time and in multiple ways. Consumers
      engage in many discrete transactions, always with an identifiable product or service
      about which they can say, “I bought this.” However, when seeking an education, students
      do not buy a specific product or service external to themselves, except for books and
      supplies. Further, the quantifiable results of education--salary earned, positions
      obtained, rewards gleaned--are not the only objectives here. Rather, our students
      contract with us to be challenged and to exceed their previous intellectual limits. Unlike
      consumers, students never really get an education. They, like all of us, are involved in the
      process of becoming wiser. (Cheney, McMillan, and Schwartzman)
      My sources also argue that learning is very different from consuming because
      Satisfying learners often runs counter to the conditions necessary for learning because
      learning often involves some discomfort, disequilibrium, and challenge. Students learn
      through the cognitive conflicts that occur when they face new points of view, new
      information, and new perspectives. Students learn when they are encouraged to reflect
      actively on the information that is unfamiliar and initially illogical or even threatening. In
      such situations, the dynamic tension created between the known and the new causes
      new thinking, analysis and reevaluation. (Tasie, 312)
      Education is supposed to be uncomfortable because it challenges and changes us. “The teacher
      is not there to satisfy the student but to dissatisfy; not to provide but to demand.“ (Love, 28)
      What are effects on students when they think of themselves as customers? Some articles
      argue that thinking of themselves as customers make students more passive.
      Students speak about how lecturers should be responsible for capturing and holding
      their interest. While lecturers have a clear responsibility to offer appropriate guidance
      and support and to present their material in interesting and pedagogically sound ways,
      there is a passivity implied in some of the students’ responses that raises questions about
      how students are seeing themselves as learners. (White 599).
      Or: “The stance is of ‘the customer’ who has minimal obligation to engage and contribute a
      satisfactory outcome, and who irrespective of the contribution made, has an entitlement to
      satisfaction with the service being provided.” (White 600)
      Other articles argue that when students think of themselves as consumers, they want
      immediate satisfaction, even though education takes time:
      … with the business model comes this seemingly inexorable need to ‘get faster,’ resulting
      in a form of temporal disjunction between competing educational models. The business
      ideal, with its customer orientation, calls for constant change and rapid response,
      resulting in an educational sector that is ‘[o]bsessed by cultivating the ability to stay on
      top of the latest trends.’ Lasch points out that under such circumstances practitioners
      ‘find it difficult to imagine a community of learning that reaches into both the past and
      the future and is constituted by an awareness of intergenerational obligation.’ Education
      is divested of its heritage and revalued; it is deemed useful only in as much as it can
      respond to the business needs of the moment. (Love 21)
      But the effect is not just on students. I found a blog comment where someone claimed that
      is not there to satisfy the student but to dissatisfy; not to provide but to demand.“ (Love, 28)
      What are effects on students when they think of themselves as customers? Some articles
      argue that thinking of themselves as customers make students more passive.
      Students speak about how lecturers should be responsible for capturing and holding
      their interest. While lecturers have a clear responsibility to offer appropriate guidance
      and support and to present their material in interesting and pedagogically sound ways,
      there is a passivity implied in some of the students’ responses that raises questions about
      how students are seeing themselves as learners. (White 599).
      Or: “The stance is of ‘the customer’ who has minimal obligation to engage and contribute a
      satisfactory outcome, and who irrespective of the contribution made, has an entitlement to
      satisfaction with the service being provided.” (White 600)
      Other articles argue that when students think of themselves as consumers, they want
      immediate satisfaction, even though education takes time:
      … with the business model comes this seemingly inexorable need to ‘get faster,’ resulting
      in a form of temporal disjunction between competing educational models. The business
      ideal, with its customer orientation, calls for constant change and rapid response,
      resulting in an educational sector that is ‘[o]bsessed by cultivating the ability to stay on
      top of the latest trends.’ Lasch points out that under such circumstances practitioners
      ‘find it difficult to imagine a community of learning that reaches into both the past and
      the future and is constituted by an awareness of intergenerational obligation.’ Education
      is divested of its heritage and revalued; it is deemed useful only in as much as it can
      respond to the business needs of the moment. (Love 21)
      But the effect is not just on students. I found a blog comment where someone claimed that
      “When students are ‘customers,’ the academic institution becomes a business, seeking to
      maximize profits, rather than educate.” When the university is a business, it becomes concerned
      with numbers: How many students can we teach?
      All of this leads me to think that it is more important to ask: Who am I in school—and what
      am I becoming? What do I think I should be—what should my attitudes be—toward learning
      and a noble self? The readings, while frustrating, also seemed to call at me to push myself to be
      something other than someone who buys.
      “When students are ‘customers,’ the academic institution becomes a business, seeking to
      maximize profits, rather than educate.” When the university is a business, it becomes concerned
      with numbers: How many students can we teach?
      All of this leads me to think that it is more important to ask: Who am I in school—and what
      am I becoming? What do I think I should be—what should my attitudes be—toward learning
      and a noble self? The readings, while frustrating, also seemed to call at me to push myself to be
      something other than someone who buys.

      Works Cited

      Cheney, George, Jill J. McMillan, and Roy Schwartzman. “Should We Buy the ‘Student-As-Consumer’ Metaphor?” Montana Professor 7.3 (1997): 8-11. Web.
      Denning, Peter J. “Are Students Customers, or Not?” Oct. 12 2002. Web. 4 May 2012. http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/StudentsCustomers.pdf
      Love, Kevin. “Higher Education, Pedagogy and the ‘Customerisation’ of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42.1 (2008): 15–34. Print.
      Schwartzman, Roy. “Are Students Customers? The Metaphoric Mismatch between Management and Education.” Education 116.2 (1995): 215-222. Education Research Complete. 3 May 2012.
      Tasie, George O. “Analytical observations of the applicability of the concept of student-as-customer in a university setting.” Educational Research and Reviews 5.6 (2010): 309–13. Academic Journals. Web. 5 May 2012.
      White, Naomi Rosh. “‘The customer is always right?’: Student discourse about higher education in Australia.” Higher Education 54.4 (2007): 593–604. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2012.

      Works Cited

      Cheney, George, Jill J. McMillan, and Roy Schwartzman. “Should We Buy the ‘Student-As-Consumer’ Metaphor?” Montana Professor 7.3 (1997): 8-11. Web.
      Denning, Peter J. “Are Students Customers, or Not?” Oct. 12 2002. Web. 4 May 2012. http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/pjd/PUBS/StudentsCustomers.pdf
      Love, Kevin. “Higher Education, Pedagogy and the ‘Customerisation’ of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42.1 (2008): 15–34. Print.
      Schwartzman, Roy. “Are Students Customers? The Metaphoric Mismatch between Management and Education.” Education 116.2 (1995): 215-222. Education Research Complete. 3 May 2012.
      Tasie, George O. “Analytical observations of the applicability of the concept of student-as-customer in a university setting.” Educational Research and Reviews 5.6 (2010): 309–13. Academic Journals. Web. 5 May 2012.
      White, Naomi Rosh. “‘The customer is always right?’: Student discourse about higher education in Australia.” Higher Education 54.4 (2007): 593–604. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2012.
    • Ajay Chaudry
      Professor Wysocki
      English 102
      June 4, 2012
      Can you buy an education?
      In college, do I want to be a student engaged with education—or a customer buying a
      product?
      Until I read my sources for this paper, I did not understand that this question mattered. At
      first the difference between “student” and “customer” does not seem large: students learn
      something; customers buy something. Exploring the differences between learning and buying,
      however, and exploring the consequences of thinking of students as customers, has helped me
      learn that the differences do matter. If I really want an education, then I do not want to think of
      myself as a customer—and I certainly do not want my teachers or college to think of me as a
      customer.
      Consider first the differences between learning and buying. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t
      have to do anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat
      it. That’s it. To get into college, I had to do more than just pay money: I had to apply and show
      that I was prepared. As scholar David George describes in The Journal of Socio-Economics,
      “since flunking out is always possible, to remain a student and eventually earn a degree signals
      further that one had something besides money that made the degree possible” (George 971).
      Learning in college, then, requires more than walking in, putting down some money, and getting
      a degree; students have to prepare and make efforts to succeed in college. George does remind us
      that buying some products can also require efforts from a consumer. If I buy a car, for example, I
      Ajay Chaudry
      Professor Wysocki
      English 102
      June 4, 2012
      Can you buy an education?
      In college, do I want to be a student engaged with education—or a customer buying a
      product?
      Until I read my sources for this paper, I did not understand that this question mattered. At
      first the difference between “student” and “customer” does not seem large: students learn
      something; customers buy something. Exploring the differences between learning and buying,
      however, and exploring the consequences of thinking of students as customers, has helped me
      learn that the differences do matter. If I really want an education, then I do not want to think of
      myself as a customer—and I certainly do not want my teachers or college to think of me as a
      customer.
      Consider first the differences between learning and buying. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t
      have to do anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat
      it. That’s it. To get into college, I had to do more than just pay money: I had to apply and show
      that I was prepared. As scholar David George describes in The Journal of Socio-Economics,
      “since flunking out is always possible, to remain a student and eventually earn a degree signals
      further that one had something besides money that made the degree possible” (George 971).
      Learning in college, then, requires more than walking in, putting down some money, and getting
      a degree; students have to prepare and make efforts to succeed in college. George does remind us
      that buying some products can also require efforts from a consumer. If I buy a car, for example, I
      Ajay Chaudry
      Professor Wysocki
      English 102
      June 4, 2012
      Can you buy an education?
      In college, do I want to be a student engaged with education—or a customer buying a
      product?
      Until I read my sources for this paper, I did not understand that this question mattered. At
      first the difference between “student” and “customer” does not seem large: students learn
      something; customers buy something. Exploring the differences between learning and buying,
      however, and exploring the consequences of thinking of students as customers, has helped me
      learn that the differences do matter. If I really want an education, then I do not want to think of
      myself as a customer—and I certainly do not want my teachers or college to think of me as a
      customer.
      Consider first the differences between learning and buying. When I buy a hamburger, I don’t
      have to do anything. I stand at the counter, place my order, and they give me a hamburger. I eat
      it. That’s it. To get into college, I had to do more than just pay money: I had to apply and show
      that I was prepared. As scholar David George describes in The Journal of Socio-Economics,
      “since flunking out is always possible, to remain a student and eventually earn a degree signals
      further that one had something besides money that made the degree possible” (George 971).
      Learning in college, then, requires more than walking in, putting down some money, and getting
      a degree; students have to prepare and make efforts to succeed in college. George does remind us
      that buying some products can also require efforts from a consumer. If I buy a car, for example, I
      have to take care of it by changing its oil, keeping the brakes working, and so on; if I buy suntan
      lotion I have to pay attention to how I use it, and if I buy a book I have to put in effort to read it.
      George writes, however, that education “appears to be in a class by itself in requiring the
      demonstration of abilities prior to being accepted as a ‘customer’ and requiring the putting forth
      of effort before one can receive what one is ultimately seeking” (972).
      And what is it we students are ultimately seeking? George says it is a diploma. Although a
      diploma is certainly important, I don’t think anyone would be happy if someone described our
      school as “selling diplomas” (see George 970)—and I think that what we hope results from our
      efforts in college go beyond that piece of paper. As Laurie Lomas writes in Quality in Higher
      Education, a student is “only able to reflect fully upon the benefits of the knowledge and skills
      acquired and the attitudes that have been developed after a number of years when there has been
      sufficient opportunity to realise what they have learnt” (35). Getting a diploma means we have
      learned something, but I think Lomas is arguing that we won’t really know what we have learned
      until we have time to put ourselves to the test in the real world.
      But there is another aspect of education that my reading got me to think about. In the Journal
      of Philosophy of Education, Kevin Love builds an argument about what is essential to be
      educated; he writes that “to be educated is to exceed oneself, to exceed the inadequacies of the
      oneself” (27). This is odd language to me, but it pulls at me. The words suggest that education is
      about being stretched, being helped to push against our limitations, and trying to be and do more
      than I thought I could. I am in college, then, to learn what will help me get a good job but also to
      learn how to keep stretching. As several Montana college teachers have written, “our students
      contract with us to be challenged and to exceed their previous intellectual limits. … They, like all
      of us, are involved in the process of becoming wiser” (Cheney, McMillan, and Schwartzman).
      have to take care of it by changing its oil, keeping the brakes working, and so on; if I buy suntan
      lotion I have to pay attention to how I use it, and if I buy a book I have to put in effort to read it.
      George writes, however, that education “appears to be in a class by itself in requiring the
      demonstration of abilities prior to being accepted as a ‘customer’ and requiring the putting forth
      of effort before one can receive what one is ultimately seeking” (972).
      And what is it we students are ultimately seeking? George says it is a diploma. Although a
      diploma is certainly important, I don’t think anyone would be happy if someone described our
      school as “selling diplomas” (see George 970)—and I think that what we hope results from our
      efforts in college go beyond that piece of paper. As Laurie Lomas writes in Quality in Higher
      Education, a student is “only able to reflect fully upon the benefits of the knowledge and skills
      acquired and the attitudes that have been developed after a number of years when there has been
      sufficient opportunity to realise what they have learnt” (35). Getting a diploma means we have
      learned something, but I think Lomas is arguing that we won’t really know what we have learned
      until we have time to put ourselves to the test in the real world.
      But there is another aspect of education that my reading got me to think about. In the Journal
      of Philosophy of Education, Kevin Love builds an argument about what is essential to be
      educated; he writes that “to be educated is to exceed oneself, to exceed the inadequacies of the
      oneself” (27). This is odd language to me, but it pulls at me. The words suggest that education is
      about being stretched, being helped to push against our limitations, and trying to be and do more
      than I thought I could. I am in college, then, to learn what will help me get a good job but also to
      learn how to keep stretching. As several Montana college teachers have written, “our students
      contract with us to be challenged and to exceed their previous intellectual limits. … They, like all
      of us, are involved in the process of becoming wiser” (Cheney, McMillan, and Schwartzman).
      Those words help me see why Love and other writers describe how education is supposed to
      be hard. It is supposed to be hard because we are to be challenged and to challenge ourselves. I
      don’t think wisdom comes easily. Love writes that a “teacher is not there to satisfy the student
      but to dissatisfy; not to provide but to demand” (Love, 28). As George O. Tasie writes in
      Educational Research and Reviews:
      learning often involves some discomfort, disequilibrium, and challenge. Students learn
      through the cognitive conflicts that occur when they face new points of view, new
      information, and new perspectives. Students learn when they are encouraged to reflect
      actively on the information that is unfamiliar and initially illogical or even threatening. In
      such situations, the dynamic tension created between the known and the new causes new
      thinking, analysis, and reevaluation. (Tasie, 312)
      When we buy something, we do not expect it to require much effort from us, to challenge us, or
      to help us exceed ourselves over the course of our whole lives—but we should expect that when
      we learn.
      I hope I have made clear what I have been persuaded are differences between being a student
      and being a customer, between learning and consuming. What I hope to make clear next are
      consequences of not paying attention to these differences, of treating students as customers.
      For anyone running a business, the primary question (as James C. Carey asks in his article
      “University or Corporation”) is “Will this please the majority of my customers?” (443). When
      schools think of themselves as businesses and their students as customers, then they too ask the
      same question. The articles I read describe how colleges and universities, because they often
      compete for students and need tuition, want to please their students to keep them enrolled. Some
      consequences of trying to please students will trouble most of us, I think.
      Those words help me see why Love and other writers describe how education is supposed to
      be hard. It is supposed to be hard because we are to be challenged and to challenge ourselves. I
      don’t think wisdom comes easily. Love writes that a “teacher is not there to satisfy the student
      but to dissatisfy; not to provide but to demand” (Love, 28). As George O. Tasie writes in
      Educational Research and Reviews:
      learning often involves some discomfort, disequilibrium, and challenge. Students learn
      through the cognitive conflicts that occur when they face new points of view, new
      information, and new perspectives. Students learn when they are encouraged to reflect
      actively on the information that is unfamiliar and initially illogical or even threatening. In
      such situations, the dynamic tension created between the known and the new causes new
      thinking, analysis, and reevaluation. (Tasie, 312)
      When we buy something, we do not expect it to require much effort from us, to challenge us, or
      to help us exceed ourselves over the course of our whole lives—but we should expect that when
      we learn.
      I hope I have made clear what I have been persuaded are differences between being a student
      and being a customer, between learning and consuming.
      What I hope to make clear next are
      consequences of not paying attention to these differences, of treating students as customers.
      For anyone running a business, the primary question (as James C. Carey asks in his article
      “University or Corporation”) is “Will this please the majority of my customers?” (443). When
      schools think of themselves as businesses and their students as customers, then they too ask the
      same question. The articles I read describe how colleges and universities, because they often
      compete for students and need tuition, want to please their students to keep them enrolled. Some
      consequences of trying to please students will trouble most of us, I think.
      First, teachers who worry about pleasing their students can dumb down their classes or
      emphasize their entertainment value so students won’t complain about hard work. Students can
      then come to expect such treatment, as these two quotations from university students show:
      I need a bit more motivation. …Basically, I don’t want to study. I’m lazy… I want
      [teachers] to excite me and make me want to be passionate about learning that subject.
      …If it doesn’t grab my attention I’ll just doze off, even though I might not be tired. My
      attention span is severely lacking in a subject that doesn’t grab my attention at all. (qtd. in
      White, 599)
      And
      It gets kind of frustrating when [professors] … can’t hold my attention. I don’t
      understand why they should be so high and mighty and tell me off for keeping myself
      amused. … it’s their own fault if they can’t hold my attention and do an interesting
      lecture. (qtd. in White, 599)
      Although I think teachers should try to make their classes interesting, what I have written in
      earlier paragraphs about education and what students need to do implies that teachers shouldn’t
      have to entertain us; we have responsibilities to make ourselves learn, too.
      When students and schools both think of students as customers, grade inflation can happen.
      Grade inflation is when, over a number of years, the average grade given in the same class for
      the same work goes up. The writers I read explain that this happens for several reasons. Students
      think that what they are buying in school is a grade (see George 973 or White 600, for example).
      And when schools tell teachers that they have to keep students happy so that students will keep
      paying tuition, the teachers raise grades (White 594-595). Also, in such circumstances, schools
      evaluate teachers based on student evaluations, and so some teachers raise grades to make sure
      First, teachers who worry about pleasing their students can dumb down their classes or
      emphasize their entertainment value so students won’t complain about hard work. Students can
      then come to expect such treatment, as these two quotations from university students show:
      I need a bit more motivation. …Basically, I don’t want to study. I’m lazy… I want
      [teachers] to excite me and make me want to be passionate about learning that subject.
      …If it doesn’t grab my attention I’ll just doze off, even though I might not be tired. My
      attention span is severely lacking in a subject that doesn’t grab my attention at all. (qtd. in
      White, 599)
      And
      It gets kind of frustrating when [professors] … can’t hold my attention. I don’t
      understand why they should be so high and mighty and tell me off for keeping myself
      amused. … it’s their own fault if they can’t hold my attention and do an interesting
      lecture. (qtd. in White, 599)
      Although I think teachers should try to make their classes interesting, what I have written in
      earlier paragraphs about education and what students need to do implies that teachers shouldn’t
      have to entertain us; we have responsibilities to make ourselves learn, too.
      When students and schools both think of students as customers, grade inflation can happen.
      Grade inflation is when, over a number of years, the average grade given in the same class for
      the same work goes up. The writers I read explain that this happens for several reasons. Students
      think that what they are buying in school is a grade (see George 973 or White 600, for example).
      And when schools tell teachers that they have to keep students happy so that students will keep
      paying tuition, the teachers raise grades (White 594-595). Also, in such circumstances, schools
      evaluate teachers based on student evaluations, and so some teachers raise grades to make sure
      that their students give good evaluations. (White 594-595)
      Finally, when students and schools both think of students as customers, then that’s all the
      students become through their education. All that I have read and presented above supports
      Love’s argument that, when students become customers, the main consequence is that all of
      schooling “seems less concerned with the formation of citizens and more concerned with
      encouraging individuals to become consumers” (21).
      When we are in college, then, we should ask ourselves who we want to be and become. Do
      we want our educations to be about becoming customers—people who are known for nothing but
      buying and wanting simple satisfactions? Or do we want our educations to be about becoming
      people who learn, who know how to stretch and take on hard work, who can be citizens, who
      seek wisdom?
      Who do you want to be?
      that their students give good evaluations. (White 594-595)
      Finally, when students and schools both think of students as customers, then that’s all the
      students become through their education. All that I have read and presented above supports
      Love’s argument that, when students become customers, the main consequence is that all of
      schooling “seems less concerned with the formation of citizens and more concerned with
      encouraging individuals to become consumers” (21).
      When we are in college, then, we should ask ourselves who we want to be and become. Do
      we want our educations to be about becoming customers—people who are known for nothing but
      buying and wanting simple satisfactions? Or do we want our educations to be about becoming
      people who learn, who know how to stretch and take on hard work, who can be citizens, who
      seek wisdom?
      Who do you want to be?

      Works Cited

      Carey, James C. “University or Corporation?” Journal of Higher Education 27. 8 (1956): 440+. Jstor. Web. 7 May 2012..
      Cheney, George, Jill J. McMillan, and Roy Schwartzman. “Should We Buy the ‘Student-As-Consumer’ Metaphor?” Montana Professor 7.3 (1997): 8-11. Web.
      George, David. “Market overreach: The student as customer.” Journal of Socio-Economics 36 (2007): 965–77. Science Direct. Web. 5 May 2012.
      Lomas, Laurie. “Are Students Customers? Perceptions of Academic Staff.” Quality in Higher Education 13.1 (2007): 31–44. Academic Search Premier. 7 May 2012.
      Love, Kevin. “Higher Education, Pedagogy and the ‘Customerisation’ of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42.1 (2008): 15–34. Print.
      Tasie, George O. “Analytical observations of the applicability of the concept of student-as-customer in a university setting.” Educational Research and Reviews 5.6 (2010): 309–13. Academic Journals. Web. 5 May 2012.
      White, Naomi Rosh. “‘The customer is always right?’: Student discourse about higher education in Australia.” Higher Education 54.4 (2007): 593–604. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2012.

      Works Cited

      Carey, James C. “University or Corporation?” Journal of Higher Education 27. 8 (1956): 440+. Jstor. Web. 7 May 2012..
      Cheney, George, Jill J. McMillan, and Roy Schwartzman. “Should We Buy the ‘Student-As-Consumer’ Metaphor?” Montana Professor 7.3 (1997): 8-11. Web.
      George, David. “Market overreach: The student as customer.” Journal of Socio-Economics 36 (2007): 965–77. Science Direct. Web. 5 May 2012.
      Lomas, Laurie. “Are Students Customers? Perceptions of Academic Staff.” Quality in Higher Education 13.1 (2007): 31–44. Academic Search Premier. 7 May 2012.
      Love, Kevin. “Higher Education, Pedagogy and the ‘Customerisation’ of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 42.1 (2008): 15–34. Print.
      Tasie, George O. “Analytical observations of the applicability of the concept of student-as-customer in a university setting.” Educational Research and Reviews 5.6 (2010): 309–13. Academic Journals. Web. 5 May 2012.
      White, Naomi Rosh. “‘The customer is always right?’: Student discourse about higher education in Australia.” Higher Education 54.4 (2007): 593–604. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 May 2012.

  • draft

    major revisions

    final paper

    • Riley

    • Riley's teacher

    • Hi, I’m Riley.

      To see my big revisions and why I made them, click the numbered buttons on the left. (Click the little pages to read my draft and final revision.)

      I don’t think I ever worked harder on a paper. Everything I found through my first research steps made microloans look like these perfect solutions to poverty. I made myself find sources that had different perspectives, though, and I found a lot. Reading my second set of sources really made me think hard about how microloans work.

      It took me a while to fine tune my argument—but, boy, the results seem so good! I am so happy with this paper! I hope my work can help you learn how to right really satisfying papers.

    • I was disappointed when the response to my first draft showed that readers didn’t see my argument. At first I thought that my readers weren’t just reading carefully, but then I had to take them seriously: They had read carefully and I had not made my argument clear enough for them.

      If you compare my first and final drafts, you’ll see that I was pretty vague about my argument in the first draft and, in fact, never really laid it out in a focused way. Look at my final draft, at how I outline my argument in my second paragraph, and see how much clearer that is.

      Also compare the last paragraphs of each paper: It blows me away how much clearer and more focused the conclusion is in my final draft! I couldn’t have gotten there without a lot of thinking and revising.

    • You can see a huge difference in my sources between my first and final drafts.

      The frustration I felt after the feedback to my first draft made me go and find and read a lot of new sources. I wanted to understand better what was going on, just for myself, and I knew I had to do that before I could ever help anyone else understand the problems with microloans.

      I learned a lot about doing searches and about how to use Google and the school library's database. But what made me happier was how much more I learned by doing all this searching and reading. I honestly feel like I understand this issue pretty well now. (But I think my friends might be tired of hearing me talk about this… although this research is making me think about changing my major to international studies.)

    • Oh, man, I am soooo embarrassed when I look back at all those quotations in my first draft…

      I realize now how nervous I was about summarizing and paraphrasing sources; I felt like no one would accept me saying those things and that I had better use my source’s words. When I compare the quotations in my first draft to how I summarized and paraphrased in my final draft, I realize that I could say things in much less space—and that allowed me to say more and go into more depth.

      But I also learned that when I make myself summarize, I better understand what matters for me. And it makes me feel good (stronger, I guess?) to put things out there in my own words and to know that I am smart enough and have worked hard enough to have these ideas be mine.

    • Hello, I am Marianna Maathai, and I was Riley’s teacher when she composed “Do Microloans Cure Women’s Poverty?”

      Riley carried out focused and sustained work on this paper. She was persistent, and that persistence paid off. It can be difficult to keep up one’s energy in finding new sources, rewriting to focus an argument, and making big revisions—but I think Riley learned a lot about her own abilities to think and do analysis.

    • As someone who has published several articles in academic journals, I know how hard it can be to receive feedback that tells you that readers aren’t seeing what you hope that are seeing in your writing.

      Riley had to deal with some disappointing feedback—but she was tough and took it to heart, and her writing is so much stronger and clearer as a result. By comparing her arguments between her first and final drafts, you can see how her persistence paid off.

    • I was tempted to give Riley an A on this project just because of how patient and thorough she was with her research. (She earned an A at the end because of that and because of her patience and persistence with her revision—and because she was so careful in organizing her writing for readers.)

      After the feedback she received on her first draft, Riley came to office hours to ask me for advice on finding new searches. Together, we came up with some new search terms and I suggested some directions for using the subject groupings of databases through the library. But it was all on her own that she put in the time and patiently turned up new sources that helped her more clearly understand what mattered to her (and what she wanted to matter to her readers) in this writing.

    • Riley made me so proud with how she revised all those long quotations from her first draft.

      I know it can make writers nervous to summarize and paraphrase, and I know that quotation feels so much safer. But the work of summarizing and paraphrasing did exactly what it should for Riley: she came to understand better not only her sources but her own ideas and concerns. She gained confidence and grace in her thinking.

      Watching students like Riley do this sort of work and learn… it’s one of the reasons I became a teacher…!

    • Riley M. Savage
      ENG2001
      17 Nov. 2013
      Money Makes the World Go Round
      Says Nyamba Konate, a USAID microloan beneficiary, “I can now ensure that my
      children go to school, and I can better support my husband by buying food and stocking
      it to get us through the difficult rainy season.” (“Microloans and Literacy")
       
      Everyone wants poverty to go away, and microloans have been described as one way to
      do this.
      A Google search with “microloan” gets over 2,000,000 hits, many to organizations that
      offer very small loans to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank loans. The
      websites tell stories of the changes microloans can make in the lives of poor women all over the
      world. But anyone who thinks microloans are always good has obviously not read enough.
      Grameen Bank was the first to give microcredit.
      The inspiration for Grameen Bank came to Dr. Yunus during a trip to the
      village of Jobra in Bangladesh during the devastating famine of 1974. He met a
      woman who was struggling to make ends meet as a weaver of bamboo stools. She
      needed to borrow to buy materials, but because she was poor and had no assets,
      conventional banks shunned her, and she had to turn instead to local moneylenders
      whose extortionate rates of interest consumed nearly all her profits.
      Dr. Yunus, then a professor of rural economics at Chittagong University,
      gave the woman and several of her neighbors loans totalling $27 from his own
      Riley M. Savage
      ENG2001
      17 Nov. 2013
      Money Makes the World Go Round
      Says Nyamba Konate, a USAID microloan beneficiary, “I can now ensure that my
      children go to school, and I can better support my husband by buying food and stocking
      it to get us through the difficult rainy season.” (“Microloans and Literacy")
       
      Everyone wants poverty to go away, and microloans have been described as one way to
      do this.
      A Google search with “microloan” gets over 2,000,000 hits, many to organizations that
      offer very small loans to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank loans. The
      websites tell stories of the changes microloans can make in the lives of poor women all over the
      world. But anyone who thinks microloans are always good has obviously not read enough.
      Grameen Bank was the first to give microcredit.
      The inspiration for Grameen Bank came to Dr. Yunus during a trip to the
      village of Jobra in Bangladesh during the devastating famine of 1974. He met a
      woman who was struggling to make ends meet as a weaver of bamboo stools. She
      needed to borrow to buy materials, but because she was poor and had no assets,
      conventional banks shunned her, and she had to turn instead to local moneylenders
      whose extortionate rates of interest consumed nearly all her profits.
      Dr. Yunus, then a professor of rural economics at Chittagong University,
      gave the woman and several of her neighbors loans totalling $27 from his own
      Riley M. Savage
      ENG2001
      17 Nov. 2013
      Money Makes the World Go Round
      Says Nyamba Konate, a USAID microloan beneficiary, “I can now ensure that my
      children go to school, and I can better support my husband by buying food and stocking
      it to get us through the difficult rainy season.” (“Microloans and Literacy")
       
      Everyone wants poverty to go away, and microloans have been described as one way to
      do this.
      A Google search with “microloan” gets over 2,000,000 hits, many to organizations that
      offer very small loans to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank loans. The
      websites tell stories of the changes microloans can make in the lives of poor women all over the
      world. But anyone who thinks microloans are always good has obviously not read enough.
      Grameen Bank was the first to give microcredit.
      The inspiration for Grameen Bank came to Dr. Yunus during a trip to the
      village of Jobra in Bangladesh during the devastating famine of 1974. He met a
      woman who was struggling to make ends meet as a weaver of bamboo stools. She
      needed to borrow to buy materials, but because she was poor and had no assets,
      conventional banks shunned her, and she had to turn instead to local moneylenders
      whose extortionate rates of interest consumed nearly all her profits.
      Dr. Yunus, then a professor of rural economics at Chittagong University,
      gave the woman and several of her neighbors loans totalling $27 from his own
      pocket. To his surprise, the borrowers paid him back in full and on time. So he
      started traveling from village to village, offering more tiny loans and cutting out
      the middlemen. Dr. Yunus was determined to prove that lending to the poor was
      not an “impossible proposition,” as he put it. When he later formalized the loan-
      making arrangement as the Grameen Bank in 1983, the bank adopted its signature
      innovation: making borrowers take out loans in groups of five, with each borrower
      guaranteeing the others’ debts. Thus, in place of the hold banks have on wealthier
      borrowers who do not pay their debts—foreclosure and a low credit rating—
      Grameen depends on an incentive at least as powerful for poor villagers, the threat
      of being shamed before neighbors and relatives. (Giridharadas and Bradsher)
      Almost everyone talks about how good microloans are. As though poverty as we know it
      will end. Women will be liberated.
      But one writer says that most studies of microcredit programs “find very small increases
      in income for quite large numbers of borrowers; in only a very small number of cases are there
      significant income increases” (Mayoux 39). It most often benefits women who are not at the
      lowest levels of poverty, while the poorest of the poor lose ground. Microcredit also doesn’t last
      long because the borrowers often can’t use their loans for anything but tonight’s dinner or an
      emergency. Or maybe the women do work that doesn’t make much money, like selling home-
      made food on the streets, cleaning the houses of others, or working at home. So women are still
      stuck at home or in small jobs. Meaning their communities will still be poor. “Bangladesh and
      Bolivia are two countries widely recognized for having the most successful microcredit programs
      in the world. They also remain two of the poorest countries in the world.”
      And the loan often added to what women have to do in a day. When women use their
      pocket. To his surprise, the borrowers paid him back in full and on time. So he
      started traveling from village to village, offering more tiny loans and cutting out
      the middlemen. Dr. Yunus was determined to prove that lending to the poor was
      not an “impossible proposition,” as he put it. When he later formalized the loan-
      making arrangement as the Grameen Bank in 1983, the bank adopted its signature
      innovation: making borrowers take out loans in groups of five, with each borrower
      guaranteeing the others’ debts. Thus, in place of the hold banks have on wealthier
      borrowers who do not pay their debts—foreclosure and a low credit rating—
      Grameen depends on an incentive at least as powerful for poor villagers, the threat
      of being shamed before neighbors and relatives. (Giridharadas and Bradsher)
      Almost everyone talks about how good microloans are. As though poverty as we know it
      will end. Women will be liberated.
      But one writer says that most studies of microcredit programs “find very small increases
      in income for quite large numbers of borrowers; in only a very small number of cases are there
      significant income increases” (Mayoux 39). It most often benefits women who are not at the
      lowest levels of poverty, while the poorest of the poor lose ground. Microcredit also doesn’t last
      long because the borrowers often can’t use their loans for anything but tonight’s dinner or an
      emergency. Or maybe the women do work that doesn’t make much money, like selling home-
      made food on the streets, cleaning the houses of others, or working at home. So women are still
      stuck at home or in small jobs. Meaning their communities will still be poor. “Bangladesh and
      Bolivia are two countries widely recognized for having the most successful microcredit programs
      in the world. They also remain two of the poorest countries in the world.”
      And the loan often added to what women have to do in a day. When women use their
      pocket. To his surprise, the borrowers paid him back in full and on time. So he
      started traveling from village to village, offering more tiny loans and cutting out
      the middlemen. Dr. Yunus was determined to prove that lending to the poor was
      not an “impossible proposition,” as he put it. When he later formalized the loan-
      making arrangement as the Grameen Bank in 1983, the bank adopted its signature
      innovation: making borrowers take out loans in groups of five, with each borrower
      guaranteeing the others’ debts. Thus, in place of the hold banks have on wealthier
      borrowers who do not pay their debts—foreclosure and a low credit rating—
      Grameen depends on an incentive at least as powerful for poor villagers, the threat
      of being shamed before neighbors and relatives. (Giridharadas and Bradsher)
      Almost everyone talks about how good microloans are. As though poverty as we know it
      will end. Women will be liberated.
      But one writer says that most studies of microcredit programs “find very small increases
      in income for quite large numbers of borrowers; in only a very small number of cases are there
      significant income increases” (Mayoux 39). It most often benefits women who are not at the
      lowest levels of poverty, while the poorest of the poor lose ground. Microcredit also doesn’t last
      long because the borrowers often can’t use their loans for anything but tonight’s dinner or an
      emergency. Or maybe the women do work that doesn’t make much money, like selling home-
      made food on the streets, cleaning the houses of others, or working at home. So women are still
      stuck at home or in small jobs. Meaning their communities will still be poor. “Bangladesh and
      Bolivia are two countries widely recognized for having the most successful microcredit programs
      in the world. They also remain two of the poorest countries in the world.”
      And the loan often added to what women have to do in a day. When women use their
      loans to make and sell food or other stuff, they do this on top of running households and taking
      care of children sometimes they have to pull their children out of school to help out, in order to
      stay on top of the loan to pay it back (Cheston 25). And rather than learning how to use and work
      with the loan money themselves, a lot of women give their loans to men in their families because
      they live in communities where men are supposed to make money decisions. Because of this the
      men sometimes get mad and are both verbally and physically violent against women.
      Why are women supposed to be liberated by microloans? The United Nations says that:
      Women’s access to microfinance not only benefits women but also their families
      and communities, by generating:
      – Increased income, awareness, and bargaining power for women;
      – Increased resources available to the family for investment in nutrition and
      education;
      – Growth in local economies through local increases in women’s spending;
      and
      – An expanded view in the larger society of social and economic norms that relate
      to women.
      FINCA says that it lends primarily to women because
      Seventy percent of the world’s poor are women, largely because of their limited
      access to education or to productive resources like land and credit. Another
      worldwide trend is an increase in woman-headed households, in which a mother
      provides the sole support for her children. Most victims of severe poverty are
      children. According to UNICEF, at least half of the 12 million children aged five
      or younger who die each year, die from malnutrition associated with severe
      loans to make and sell food or other stuff, they do this on top of running households and taking
      care of children sometimes they have to pull their children out of school to help out, in order to
      stay on top of the loan to pay it back (Cheston 25). And rather than learning how to use and work
      with the loan money themselves, a lot of women give their loans to men in their families because
      they live in communities where men are supposed to make money decisions. Because of this the
      men sometimes get mad and are both verbally and physically violent against women.
      Why are women supposed to be liberated by microloans? The United Nations says that:
      Women’s access to microfinance not only benefits women but also their families
      and communities, by generating:
      – Increased income, awareness, and bargaining power for women;
      – Increased resources available to the family for investment in nutrition and
      education;
      – Growth in local economies through local increases in women’s spending;
      and
      – An expanded view in the larger society of social and economic norms that relate
      to women.
      FINCA says that it lends primarily to women because
      Seventy percent of the world’s poor are women, largely because of their limited
      access to education or to productive resources like land and credit. Another
      worldwide trend is an increase in woman-headed households, in which a mother
      provides the sole support for her children. Most victims of severe poverty are
      children. According to UNICEF, at least half of the 12 million children aged five
      or younger who die each year, die from malnutrition associated with severe
      poverty. The most direct way to improve childrens’survival and welfare is to
      strengthen their own mothers’ ability to take care of them. (“Frequently Asked
      Questions”)
      Microloans are supposed to help women be confident taking care of their own money and
      taking part in their communities. They are expected to use any money they earn from their loans
      for their families. Because the families are supposed to improve, their communities are supposed
      to improve, too.
      Research supports this, some. Susy Cheston says that:
      According to research by microfinance impact assessment specialist Suzy Salib
      Bauer of Sinapi Aba Trust, an Opportunity International microfinance institution
      (MFI) in Ghana, 42 percent of mature clients (those in the program two years or
      more) had an improvement in their poverty level—either moving from “very
      poor” to “poor” or from “poor” to “non-poor” status, as measured by a standard
      household asset and income index. ASHI, an MFI in the Philippines that
      exclusively targets poor women, found that 77 percent of incoming clients were
      classified as “very poor”; after two years in the program, only 13 percent of
      mature clients were still “very poor.” (23)
      Another writer describes a program that had an important positive impact on a large
      number of women members.
      Over one third of the sample had been able to begin market work with a loan, and
      the loans had enabled women to keep marginal businesses afloat in family crises
      without recourse to moneylenders. Access to loans was also estimated to have led
      to increased earnings for a quarter of all the sampled women, often through
      poverty. The most direct way to improve childrens’survival and welfare is to
      strengthen their own mothers’ ability to take care of them. (“Frequently Asked
      Questions”)
      Microloans are supposed to help women be confident taking care of their own money and
      taking part in their communities. They are expected to use any money they earn from their loans
      for their families. Because the families are supposed to improve, their communities are supposed
      to improve, too.
      Research supports this, some. Susy Cheston says that:
      According to research by microfinance impact assessment specialist Suzy Salib
      Bauer of Sinapi Aba Trust, an Opportunity International microfinance institution
      (MFI) in Ghana, 42 percent of mature clients (those in the program two years or
      more) had an improvement in their poverty level—either moving from “very
      poor” to “poor” or from “poor” to “non-poor” status, as measured by a standard
      household asset and income index. ASHI, an MFI in the Philippines that
      exclusively targets poor women, found that 77 percent of incoming clients were
      classified as “very poor”; after two years in the program, only 13 percent of
      mature clients were still “very poor.” (23)
      Another writer describes a program that had an important positive impact on a large
      number of women members.
      Over one third of the sample had been able to begin market work with a loan, and
      the loans had enabled women to keep marginal businesses afloat in family crises
      without recourse to moneylenders. Access to loans was also estimated to have led
      to increased earnings for a quarter of all the sampled women, often through
      enabling them to switch jobs and trades to more lucrative ones. Some had
      diversified their activities, adding a second line of work or a secondary job. For
      other women the loan kept them out of further debilitating debt through diversion
      of the loan in times of major stress events such as illness, flood, death or desertion
      of husband and enabling them to carry out their ritual responsibilities necessary to
      maintaining social status. (Mayoux 39)
      So no one is wrong to think that microloans can have positive effects in the lives of
      women.
      Microloans have helped some women. But anyone who believes microloans will cure
      the world is way off. MacIsaac has written a report that shows how microloan programs ought to
      work. If we really honestly do want to end poverty, we must help women be in big business. We
      must help them make their own decisions. We must give them what will help them deal with the
      family and community stuff that stands in the way of them getting ahead, and so we must give
      them support groups and economic classes in addition to the microloans.
      enabling them to switch jobs and trades to more lucrative ones. Some had
      diversified their activities, adding a second line of work or a secondary job. For
      other women the loan kept them out of further debilitating debt through diversion
      of the loan in times of major stress events such as illness, flood, death or desertion
      of husband and enabling them to carry out their ritual responsibilities necessary to
      maintaining social status. (Mayoux 39)
      So no one is wrong to think that microloans can have positive effects in the lives of
      women.
      Microloans have helped some women. But anyone who believes microloans will cure
      the world is way off. MacIsaac has written a report that shows how microloan programs ought to
      work. If we really honestly do want to end poverty, we must help women be in big business. We
      must help them make their own decisions. We must give them what will help them deal with the
      family and community stuff that stands in the way of them getting ahead, and so we must give
      them support groups and economic classes in addition to the microloans.
      enabling them to switch jobs and trades to more lucrative ones. Some had
      diversified their activities, adding a second line of work or a secondary job. For
      other women the loan kept them out of further debilitating debt through diversion
      of the loan in times of major stress events such as illness, flood, death or desertion
      of husband and enabling them to carry out their ritual responsibilities necessary to
      maintaining social status. (Mayoux 39)
      So no one is wrong to think that microloans can have positive effects in the lives of
      women.
      Microloans have helped some women. But anyone who believes microloans will cure
      the world is way off. MacIsaac has written a report that shows how microloan programs ought to
      work. If we really honestly do want to end poverty, we must help women be in big business. We
      must help them make their own decisions. We must give them what will help them deal with the
      family and community stuff that stands in the way of them getting ahead, and so we must give
      them support groups and economic classes in addition to the microloans.

      Works Cited

      Cheston, Susy. “Women and Microfinance: Opening Markets and Minds.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1. Feb. 2004. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
      “Frequently Asked Questions.” FINCA. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
      Giridharadas, Anand, and Keith Bradsher. “Microloan Pioneer and His Bank Win Nobel Peace Prize.” New York Times 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
      Mayoux, Linda. “From Vicious to Virtuous Circles? Gender and Micro-Enterprise Development.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 1995. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
      “Microloans and Literacy Are Contributing to Food Security in Poor Upper Guinea.” USAID Africa Success Stories. 2005. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

      Works Cited

      Cheston, Susy. “Women and Microfinance: Opening Markets and Minds.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1. Feb. 2004. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
      “Frequently Asked Questions.” FINCA. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
      Giridharadas, Anand, and Keith Bradsher. “Microloan Pioneer and His Bank Win Nobel Peace Prize.” New York Times 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
      Mayoux, Linda. “From Vicious to Virtuous Circles? Gender and Micro-Enterprise Development.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 1995. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
      “Microloans and Literacy Are Contributing to Food Security in Poor Upper Guinea.” USAID Africa Success Stories. 2005. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
    • Riley M. Savage
      Professor Maathai
      UN2001
      17 Dec. 2012
      Do Microloans Cure Women’s Poverty?
      In Afghanistan, under the Taliban regime, Estorai ran her home-based beauty parlor in secret, fearing reprisals for violating the ban against cosmetics. Today, with FINCA loans, her business is flourishing and Estorai is determined her daughter will receive the education she needs to succeed in the new Afghanistan. (“Change for the Better in Afghanistan”)
      …
      Says Nyamba Konate, a microloan beneficiary, “I can now ensure that my children go to school, and I can better support my husband by buying food and stocking it to get us through the difficult rainy season.” (“Microloans and Literacy”)
      …
      “Miriam began operating her own taxi business a few years ago with the help of microloans. . . . Miriam and her husband were able to build a home, and now put the profits towards their children’s education and saving for the future. Miriam even purchased a computer for her daughter, which helps with her university studies and also allows her to offer desktop publishing services to other students and community members.” (“Improving Lives”)
       
      Google “microloan” and you’ll get over two million results. Many results link to organizations that offer very small loans—called “microloans”—to people who do not qualify for traditional bank loans. The websites tell stories like the ones above, about the positive
      changes microloans make in poor women’s lives worldwide, including the United States.
      In this paper, I question what microloans are capable of doing. After giving a brief history
      and explaining how microloans work, and then describing the claims many make for microloans,
      I show how different critics question the purposes and potentials of microloans for women. I
      consider how microcredit could be offered to poor women so that their communities really are
      enriched and the women join the global economy in ways that make sense to them and not just to
      the people who make the loans.
      Microcredit originated in Bangladesh. In the 1970s, Muhammad Yunus, an economics
      professor at a Bangladeshi university, started making very small loans to villagers so they could
      buy supplies for their small businesses; Yunus had learned that traditional banks would not give
      loans to the villagers. Eventually, out of Yunus’s loan-making came the Grameen Bank. The
      Bank makes loans to groups of five villagers who are responsible for each other’s debts.
      Because of the groups, villagers have repayment incentive: “the threat of being shamed before
      neighbors and relatives” (Giridharadas and Bradsher).
      The successes of Grameen Bank led to many other organizations following the same
      pattern: Loans are made to a small group, each member of which is responsible that all repay
      their loans. In addition, Grameen started another pattern, of loan recipients meeting regularly to
      learn community-building habits. For the loanmakers, this system seems to work: The repayment
      rate on microloans through microenterprise organizations is at least 95% (“Microenterprise
      Quick Facts”). But does the system work for borrowers?
      The “microloan” Google search described at the beginning of this paper brings up, in
      addition to microloan organization websites, many newspaper and magazine articles. Almost all
      the writing celebrates the microloan movement’s successes, describing—as in my opening
      changes microloans make in poor women’s lives worldwide, including the United States.
      In this paper, I question what microloans are capable of doing. After giving a brief history
      and explaining how microloans work, and then describing the claims many make for microloans,
      I show how different critics question the purposes and potentials of microloans for women. I
      consider how microcredit could be offered to poor women so that their communities really are
      enriched and the women join the global economy in ways that make sense to them and not just to
      the people who make the loans.
      Microcredit originated in Bangladesh. In the 1970s, Muhammad Yunus, an economics
      professor at a Bangladeshi university, started making very small loans to villagers so they could
      buy supplies for their small businesses; Yunus had learned that traditional banks would not give
      loans to the villagers. Eventually, out of Yunus’s loan-making came the Grameen Bank. The
      Bank makes loans to groups of five villagers who are responsible for each other’s debts.
      Because of the groups, villagers have repayment incentive: “the threat of being shamed before
      neighbors and relatives” (Giridharadas and Bradsher).
      The successes of Grameen Bank led to many other organizations following the same
      pattern: Loans are made to a small group, each member of which is responsible that all repay
      their loans. In addition, Grameen started another pattern, of loan recipients meeting regularly to
      learn community-building habits. For the loanmakers, this system seems to work: The repayment
      rate on microloans through microenterprise organizations is at least 95% (“Microenterprise
      Quick Facts”). But does the system work for borrowers?
      The “microloan” Google search described at the beginning of this paper brings up, in
      addition to microloan organization websites, many newspaper and magazine articles. Almost all
      the writing celebrates the microloan movement’s successes, describing—as in my opening
      changes microloans make in poor women’s lives worldwide, including the United States.
      In this paper, I question what microloans are capable of doing. After giving a brief history
      and explaining how microloans work, and then describing the claims many make for microloans,
      I show how different critics question the purposes and potentials of microloans for women. I
      consider how microcredit could be offered to poor women so that their communities really are
      enriched and the women join the global economy in ways that make sense to them and not just to
      the people who make the loans.
      Microcredit originated in Bangladesh. In the 1970s, Muhammad Yunus, an economics
      professor at a Bangladeshi university, started making very small loans to villagers so they could
      buy supplies for their small businesses; Yunus had learned that traditional banks would not give
      loans to the villagers. Eventually, out of Yunus’s loan-making came the Grameen Bank. The
      Bank makes loans to groups of five villagers who are responsible for each other’s debts.
      Because of the groups, villagers have repayment incentive: “the threat of being shamed before
      neighbors and relatives” (Giridharadas and Bradsher).
      The successes of Grameen Bank led to many other organizations following the same
      pattern: Loans are made to a small group, each member of which is responsible that all repay
      their loans. In addition, Grameen started another pattern, of loan recipients meeting regularly to
      learn community-building habits. For the loanmakers, this system seems to work: The repayment
      rate on microloans through microenterprise organizations is at least 95% (“Microenterprise
      Quick Facts”). But does the system work for borrowers?
      The “microloan” Google search described at the beginning of this paper brings up, in
      addition to microloan organization websites, many newspaper and magazine articles. Almost all
      the writing celebrates the microloan movement’s successes, describing—as in my opening
      quotations—how women in poor communities turn small loans into small businesses, have
      enough money to send their children to school, and sometimes even start providing jobs for
      others. These writings also often show the same expectations about microloans as the Nobel
      Peace Prize committee did when they gave the 2006 Prize to Yunus and the Grameen Bank: The
      Committee wrote that “lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find
      ways in which to break out of poverty” and that “microcredit has proved to be an important
      liberating force in societies where women in particular have to struggle against repressive social
      and economic conditions” (“Nobel Peace Prize”). Again and again in writings about microcredit
      those two themes emerge: Microcredit will help poor populations break out of poverty and it will
      be women who do this by using microloans to help themselves and their families. From the
      Nobel Peace Prize Committee to New York Times opinion pieces (Bajaj; Freid; Kristof; Temes),
      from bills passed in the U.S. Congress (Smith) to articles in environmental magazines (Kelly),
      those two claims are repeated over and over.
      Why are women so important as beneficiaries of microloans? In its early years, the
      Grameen Bank loaned money almost equally to men and to women—but more recently its loans
      go overwhelmingly to women (Rahman, slide 9). Another well-known microfinance
      organization, the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA), says that it lends
      primarily to women because
      Most victims of severe poverty are children. According to UNICEF, at least half
      of the 12 million children aged five or younger who die each year die from
      malnutrition associated with severe poverty. The most direct way to improve
      childrens’ survival and welfare is to strengthen their own mothers’ ability to take
      care of them. (“Frequently Asked Questions”)
      quotations—how women in poor communities turn small loans into small businesses, have
      enough money to send their children to school, and sometimes even start providing jobs for
      others. These writings also often show the same expectations about microloans as the Nobel
      Peace Prize committee did when they gave the 2006 Prize to Yunus and the Grameen Bank: The
      Committee wrote that “lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find
      ways in which to break out of poverty” and that “microcredit has proved to be an important
      liberating force in societies where women in particular have to struggle against repressive social
      and economic conditions” (“Nobel Peace Prize”). Again and again in writings about microcredit
      those two themes emerge: Microcredit will help poor populations break out of poverty and it will
      be women who do this by using microloans to help themselves and their families. From the
      Nobel Peace Prize Committee to New York Times opinion pieces (Bajaj; Freid; Kristof; Temes),
      from bills passed in the U.S. Congress (Smith) to articles in environmental magazines (Kelly),
      those two claims are repeated over and over.
      Why are women so important as beneficiaries of microloans? In its early years, the
      Grameen Bank loaned money almost equally to men and to women—but more recently its loans
      go overwhelmingly to women (Rahman, slide 9). Another well-known microfinance
      organization, the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA), says that it lends
      primarily to women because
      Most victims of severe poverty are children. According to UNICEF, at least half
      of the 12 million children aged five or younger who die each year die from
      malnutrition associated with severe poverty. The most direct way to improve
      childrens’ survival and welfare is to strengthen their own mothers’ ability to take
      care of them. (“Frequently Asked Questions”)
      The United Nations has put out a “Guide for Best Practices” in microcredit, which argues
      that women’s “access to microfinance not only benefits women but also their families and
      communities” because it not only improves women’s economic lives but also improves women’s
      places in society (Burjorjee, Deshpande, and Weidemann 7). Microloans are supposed to help
      women gain confidence in taking part in local economies and asserting themselves in their
      communities, and any income they get from the loans is expected to be applied to their families
      and so to the betterment of their communities.
      The anecdotes that begin this paper, like the others that appear in almost every source
      I’ve mentioned so far, suggest that, to some extent, microloans do help women make their—and
      their children’s—lives better. There has been some research to support these claims. For
      example, Susy Cheston, an official with the aid organization Opportunity International, provides
      evidence that, in one program in the Philippines, “77 percent of incoming clients were classified
      as ‘very poor’; after two years in the program, only 13 percent of mature clients were still ‘very
      poor’” (23). Another writer, in a paper written for the United Nations Research Institute for
      Social Development, describes how women in India use loans to start work in local markets and
      keep their families and small businesses going in hard times (Mayoux 39). So no one is wrong to
      think that microloans can have positive effects in the lives of women.
      But can those effects really “liberate women” and help “large population groups . . .
      break out of poverty” as the Nobel Prize committee suggested? Many do not think so, given the
      evidence.
      For example, in terms of poverty, the writer of the paper for the United Nations Research
      Institute for Social Development, quoted above, says, immediately after the passage I
      summarized, that most studies of microcredit programs “find very small increases in income for
      The United Nations has put out a “Guide for Best Practices” in microcredit, which argues
      that women’s “access to microfinance not only benefits women but also their families and
      communities” because it not only improves women’s economic lives but also improves women’s
      places in society (Burjorjee, Deshpande, and Weidemann 7). Microloans are supposed to help
      women gain confidence in taking part in local economies and asserting themselves in their
      communities, and any income they get from the loans is expected to be applied to their families
      and so to the betterment of their communities.
      The anecdotes that begin this paper, like the others that appear in almost every source
      I’ve mentioned so far, suggest that, to some extent, microloans do help women make their—and
      their children’s—lives better. There has been some research to support these claims. For
      example, Susy Cheston, an official with the aid organization Opportunity International, provides
      evidence that, in one program in the Philippines, “77 percent of incoming clients were classified
      as ‘very poor’; after two years in the program, only 13 percent of mature clients were still ‘very
      poor’” (23). Another writer, in a paper written for the United Nations Research Institute for
      Social Development, describes how women in India use loans to start work in local markets and
      keep their families and small businesses going in hard times (Mayoux 39). So no one is wrong to
      think that microloans can have positive effects in the lives of women.
      But can those effects really “liberate women” and help “large population groups . . .
      break out of poverty” as the Nobel Prize committee suggested? Many do not think so, given the
      evidence.
      For example, in terms of poverty, the writer of the paper for the United Nations Research
      Institute for Social Development, quoted above, says, immediately after the passage I
      summarized, that most studies of microcredit programs “find very small increases in income for
      quite large numbers of borrowers; in only a very small number of cases are there significant
      income increases” (Mayoux 39). In addition, studies also find that microcredit benefits women
      who are not at the lowest levels of poverty; the poorest of the poor may, in fact, get poorer trying
      to repay (MacIsaac 11-12; Mayoux 40-44). The benefits from microcredit also don’t last long
      because borrowers often can’t use loans for anything but immediate need (MacIsaac 15; Mayoux
      41) or the borrowers take up work where they make only a little bit of money and where they
      gain no economic clout (Feiner and Barker; Roy). Under such conditions, women’s positions
      within the overall economy do not change, meaning that their communities are unlikely to “break
      out of poverty.” Even though microcredit has been in existence for over twenty years, Robert
      Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of
      Massachusetts, pointed out in 2006 that “Bangladesh and Bolivia are two countries widely
      recognized for having the most successful microcredit programs in the world. They also remain
      two of the poorest countries in the world” (qtd. in Cockburn 9). And what of women being
      liberated by microcredit? Using the loan often adds to, rather than changes, women’s daily work:
      When women use their loans to make and sell food or other items, it is on top of running their
      households and taking care of their children, and sometimes they have to pull their children out
      of school to work in order to repay loans (Cheston 25; MacIsaac 13). And rather than learning
      about money use themselves, a significant number of women give their loans to male relatives
      because in their communities, men are supposed make economic decisions (Cowen; MacIsaac
      13; Mayoux 25). For the same reasons, when women do use their loans, it can lead to both verbal
      and physical violence against them from their families (MacIsaac 22; Mayoux 24; Rahman,
      slides 23-24).
      There is no question that microloans have helped some women, as all the anecdotes on all
      the organizational websites and in many writings show—but the evidence does not support the
      grand hopes for microloans that many hold. There are studies indicating what approaches to
      microcredit seem to work best for helping women take advantage of the potentials of microloans
      (Burjorjee, Deshpande, and Weidemann; MacIsaac). These studies acknowledge the problems
      I’ve noted about microloans, and, in response, acknowledge that women have to be given
      support in addition to loans. When women take part in regular support groups where they talk
      about how to use money and make economic decisions—and where they can talk about family
      and social circumstances— they gain both knowledge and confidence; they learn they have
      support for making decisions about money. In addition, when they are given information about
      economics and building businesses, and when they are provided mentoring, they are in a better
      position to understand possibilities for and consequences of their decisions.
      As I have described, there has been much good that has come from microcredit. But if we
      truly do want to end poverty, we cannot just give loans to women. We must also help women
      learn how to operate within the larger economy, help them make their own decisions, and give
      them resources for dealing with the familial and community structures that stand in the way of
      their confidence and abilities.
      the organizational websites and in many writings show—but the evidence does not support the
      grand hopes for microloans that many hold. There are studies indicating what approaches to
      microcredit seem to work best for helping women take advantage of the potentials of microloans
      (Burjorjee, Deshpande, and Weidemann; MacIsaac). These studies acknowledge the problems
      I’ve noted about microloans, and, in response, acknowledge that women have to be given
      support in addition to loans. When women take part in regular support groups where they talk
      about how to use money and make economic decisions—and where they can talk about family
      and social circumstances— they gain both knowledge and confidence; they learn they have
      support for making decisions about money. In addition, when they are given information about
      economics and building businesses, and when they are provided mentoring, they are in a better
      position to understand possibilities for and consequences of their decisions.
      As I have described, there has been much good that has come from microcredit. But if we
      truly do want to end poverty, we cannot just give loans to women. We must also help women
      learn how to operate within the larger economy, help them make their own decisions, and give
      them resources for dealing with the familial and community structures that stand in the way of
      their confidence and abilities.

      Works Cited

      Bajaj, Vikas. “Out to Maximize Social Gains, Not Profit.” New York Times. New York Times, 9 Dec. 2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2007.
      Burjorjee, Deena M., Rani Deshpande, and C. Jean Weidemann. Supporting Women’s Livelihoods: Microfinance That Works for the Majority: A Guide to Best Practices. New York: United Nations Capital Development Fund/Special Unit for Microfinance, 2002. Print.
      “Change for the Better in Afghanistan.” FINCA. FINCA International, July 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.
      Cheston, Susy. “Women and Microfinance: Opening Markets and Minds.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): 23-26. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      Cockburn, Alexander. “The Myth of Microloans.” Nation 6 Nov. 2006: 9. Print.
      Cowen, Tyler. “Microloans May Work, but There Is Dispute in India over Who Will Make Them.” New York Times. New York Times, 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      Feiner, Susan F., and Drucilla K. Barker. “Microcredit and Women’s Poverty.” Dollars and Sense Nov.-Dec. 2006: 10-11. Print.
      Freid, Joseph P. “From a Small Loan, a Jewelry Business Grows.” New York Times. New York Times, 12 Nov. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      “Frequently Asked Questions.” FINCA. FINCA International, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.
      Giridharadas, Anand, and Keith Bradsher. “Microloan Pioneer and His Bank Win Nobel Peace Prize.” New York Times. New York Times, 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      “Improving Lives: Miriam Carolina Mejía, Juticalpa, Honduras.” Global Partnerships. Global Partnerships, 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2007.
      Kelly, Sean. “Banking on Women: Microcredit in Northern Ghana.” Natural Life May-June 2007: 34-35. Print.
      Kristof, Nicholas D. “You, Too, Can Be a Banker to the Poor.” New York Times. New York Times, 27 Mar. 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2007.

      Works Cited

      Bajaj, Vikas. “Out to Maximize Social Gains, Not Profit.” New York Times. New York Times, 9 Dec. 2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2007.
      Burjorjee, Deena M., Rani Deshpande, and C. Jean Weidemann. Supporting Women’s Livelihoods: Microfinance That Works for the Majority: A Guide to Best Practices. New York: United Nations Capital Development Fund/Special Unit for Microfinance, 2002. Print.
      “Change for the Better in Afghanistan.” FINCA. FINCA International, July 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.
      Cheston, Susy. “Women and Microfinance: Opening Markets and Minds.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): 23-26. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      Cockburn, Alexander. “The Myth of Microloans.” Nation 6 Nov. 2006: 9. Print.
      Cowen, Tyler. “Microloans May Work, but There Is Dispute in India over Who Will Make Them.” New York Times. New York Times, 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      Feiner, Susan F., and Drucilla K. Barker. “Microcredit and Women’s Poverty.” Dollars and Sense Nov.-Dec. 2006: 10-11. Print.
      Freid, Joseph P. “From a Small Loan, a Jewelry Business Grows.” New York Times. New York Times, 12 Nov. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      “Frequently Asked Questions.” FINCA. FINCA International, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.
      Giridharadas, Anand, and Keith Bradsher. “Microloan Pioneer and His Bank Win Nobel Peace Prize.” New York Times. New York Times, 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Nov. 2007.
      “Improving Lives: Miriam Carolina Mejía, Juticalpa, Honduras.” Global Partnerships. Global Partnerships, 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2007.
      Kelly, Sean. “Banking on Women: Microcredit in Northern Ghana.” Natural Life May-June 2007: 34-35. Print.
      Kristof, Nicholas D. “You, Too, Can Be a Banker to the Poor.” New York Times. New York Times, 27 Mar. 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2007.
      MacIsaac, Norman. “The Role of Microcredit in Poverty Reduction and Promoting Gender Equity: A Discussion Paper.” Canadian International Development Agency. Strategic Policy and Planning Division, Asia Branch Canadian International Development Agency, 12 June 1997. Web. 18 Nov. 2007.
      Mayoux, Linda. “From Vicious to Virtuous Circles? Gender and Micro-Enterprise Development.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1995. Web. 18 Nov. 2007.
      “Microenterpise Quick Facts.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): n. pag. Web. 16 Nov. 2007.
      “Microloans and Literacy Are Contributing to Food Security in Poor Upper Guinea.” USAID Africa Success Stories. USAID, 2005. Web. 24 Nov. 2007.
      Norwegian Nobel Committee. Nobel Peace Prize for 2006. Oslo: Norwegian Nobel Institute, 13 Oct. Norwegian Nobel Committee. Web. 22 Nov. 2007.
      Rahman, Aminur. “Microfinance and Gender-Based Violence: Experience from the Grameen Bank Lending.” Slide program. Canadian International Development Agency. Canadian International Development Agency, 9 Nov. 2004. Web. 24 Nov. 2007.
      Roy, Ananya. “Against the Feminization of Policy.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Nov. 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2007.
      Smith, Christopher H. “Microcredit Loans Are Critical Tools for Helping the World’s Poor.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): n. pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2007.
      Temes, Peter. “Bridgeport v. Bangladesh.” New York Times. New York Times, 1 July 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.
      MacIsaac, Norman. “The Role of Microcredit in Poverty Reduction and Promoting Gender Equity: A Discussion Paper.” Canadian International Development Agency. Strategic Policy and Planning Division, Asia Branch Canadian International Development Agency, 12 June 1997. Web. 18 Nov. 2007.
      Mayoux, Linda. “From Vicious to Virtuous Circles? Gender and Micro-Enterprise Development.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1995. Web. 18 Nov. 2007.
      “Microenterpise Quick Facts.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): n. pag. Web. 16 Nov. 2007.
      “Microloans and Literacy Are Contributing to Food Security in Poor Upper Guinea.” USAID Africa Success Stories. USAID, 2005. Web. 24 Nov. 2007.
      Norwegian Nobel Committee. Nobel Peace Prize for 2006. Oslo: Norwegian Nobel Institute, 13 Oct. Norwegian Nobel Committee. Web. 22 Nov. 2007.
      Rahman, Aminur. “Microfinance and Gender-Based Violence: Experience from the Grameen Bank Lending.” Slide program. Canadian International Development Agency. Canadian International Development Agency, 9 Nov. 2004. Web. 24 Nov. 2007.
      Roy, Ananya. “Against the Feminization of Policy.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Nov. 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2007.
      Smith, Christopher H. “Microcredit Loans Are Critical Tools for Helping the World’s Poor.” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State 9.1 (2004): n. pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2007.
      Temes, Peter. “Bridgeport v. Bangladesh.” New York Times. New York Times, 1 July 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.

  • draft

    major revisions

    final paper

    • Tyler

    • Tyler's teacher

    • Hey, my name is Tyler.

      You can see my major revisions (and why I made them) by clicking on the numbered buttons to the left. (You can also read my draft and final revision by clicking on the little pages.)

      I’m proud of my final version. I really worked hard on it, and I put a lot of time into reading and finding sources—especially after the feedback I got to my first draft. The paper sounds scholarly to me, but not stuffy.

      You can also read my teacher’s thoughts on the paper by clicking her picture when you click any of the numbered buttons.

    • The revision on which I probably worked hardest was organization.

      I didn’t like hearing that people had trouble understanding why my points were ordered as they were—it had all made sense to me! But I had to listen to my readers. I had to really figure out my main points and how to order them so that they would make sense to others.

      It seems so simple now when I look back at my paper, but it took a while to realize I could first talk about the most general problem, and then the scariest, and then a solution. You can see this change in the yellow highlights in the first and final drafts.

      Once I did that, I could then show readers when I was talking about point one, point two, and then point three—and that really seemed to help. (This shows up in the green highlights in the final draft. I didn’t put green highlights in the first draft because there were none of those signposts!)

    • I hadn’t noticed that my sources were all kind of old. I’m glad (and a little embarrassed) that people pointed this out to me. This is something I’ll remember for the future, to check that my sources are relevant, darn it.

      I also learned that, for my argument, having older and newer sources combined actually helps make my point. The older and newer sources together show that this is an ongoing problem. This is sad, but important to see.

      There are two main paragraphs that change from the first draft to the final because of how I added sources. To compare between the drafts, you can see the first paragraph marked in yellow in both drafts and the second paragraph marked in green.

    • My readers told me that they had trouble following my organization. As I described in what I wrote about button 1 to the left, I learned that I needed make my organization clearer.

      Part of making it clearer meant I had to tell my readers about my main organization, my three main points.

      But I also learned that I needed to have clearer transitions to help readers understand why I was moving them from one paragraph to the next.

      If you compare my first draft to my final draft, compare the sentences that are colored the same between the two drafts. This will help you see where I added transitions to show readers how each paragraph connects to what goes before it.

      This was actually kind of fun to do, once I figured out that I needed to do it. I also had to have that bigger organization stuff under control before I could make these transitions clearer.

    • I have to admit that the more I learned about this topic the more worried I got. In my notes asking people about revisions I might need to make, I asked if I sounded like a conspiracy theorist. My readers told me that sometimes I sounded a little that way.

      I also learned that my sentences were a little choppy. That also contributed to my ethos being kind of awkward.

      In my revision, I worked hard at making my sentences sound more calm and authoritative and less paranoid. I tried to have a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences, so that there would be an easier rhythm to my words. I also removed words like “evil” and tried to sound less judgmental so that readers could focus on my evidence.

      If you compare my first draft with my final draft, you can see some sentences highlighted in different colors in the first draft; compare those to the highlights of the same colors in my final draft. I think the changes help shape a much smarter, more trustworthy ethos.

    • Good day to you. I am Christine Barts, and I was Tyler’s teacher when he composed this paper.

      I am proud of the work Tyler put into this paper: he really revised it because he was willing to make big, useful changes.

      Tyler listened carefully to all the feedback he received and he took it seriously. He persisted in finding new—and solid—sources after his initial research. He worked hard in listening to how others were reading his writing, and then he worked hard on his transitions so that his readers could better follow his argument.

      I hope you too can see Tyler’s hard work in revising.

    • Sometimes it takes writers awhile to uncover the best organization for a paper. Tyler actually had his original draft organized roughly in the order that shows up in his final draft—but he hadn’t made that organization explicit to himself and so he couldn’t make it explicit to his readers.

      Once Tyler was able to say to himself that he had three main points, and why they were ordered as they were, he could show readers his order. He could put into his introduction that he did have three main points, and then in the body of his paper he could tell readers when he was working on point 1, and then point 2, and, finally, point 3.

      This need to uncover organization happens to experienced writers, too. Sometimes writers can’t really say out loud what their organization is, and why, until after they’ve finished a full draft. But experienced writers know that they need to be able to say this out loud, and then be sure that they can make this clear to their readers.

    • I know it can be difficult to finish a first draft and then learn how much revision you need to do.

      I watched Tyler at first be a little frustrated that he had more work to do, especially after he had looked hard for sources for his first draft. After letting things settle a bit, though, he understood that he could learn a lot by paying attention to the feedback.

      The sources he found and added to his paper make his argument considerably stronger—and I am very happy that Tyler can see that!

    • In revising, Tyler learned some important but subtle approaches to helping readers.

      The kinds of transition sentences Tyler modified or added in his final revision can sometimes seem too obvious to a writer—but they can make a huge difference for readers.

      Tyler is right that it is useful to check transitions after you have a good hold on the large-scale, overall organization.

      You can check that your transitions are working (or not!) by asking friend who is a careful reader to explain back to you why each paragraph follows the one before it.

    • With his revision, Tyler learned a lot about how changing tone and sentence patterns can make a tremendous difference in how readers respond.

      The revised draft creates an ethos that sounds so much more confident because of the changed sentences. The revision also creates an ethos that sounds much more careful and so trustworthy.

      This is fine-tuned work, and Tyler could only do it after he made the other major revisions he described with the buttons numbered 1, 2, and 3.

      As I said before, I am very proud of Tyler for taking his abilities seriously and so putting the effort into his revision that he did. I think his final draft is very fine, indeed.

    • Tyler Hunt
      October 17, 2013
      DRAFT: Electronic voting
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
      --Joseph Stalin
       
      The current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting accuracy.
      These machines are so poorly designed that anyone with evil intentions and basic computer
      knowledge can hack them. Many states have decided to use electronic voting machines for the
      foreseeable future. It is important to understand how this system can be unreliable. Much of the
      praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines, hinges on their ease of use.
      They can make the entire voting process, from registration to counting, efficient. Technically,
      electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a vote in a referendum or an election,
      including the use of the Internet, but I only want to focus on direct-recording electronic voting
      machines, or DRE voting.
      Many systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed. Most of them
      work on a principle similar to that of the Diebold model. And the Diebold model gets the most
      criticism. One author describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed
      to make an obscure company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely understand
      it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire enough skilled
      people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore. Finally, blame your
      critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This just about sums up the basic flaws of most electronic voting machine production: a
      desire for efficiency outpacing security and safety issues. It almost seems like Diebold and the
      Tyler Hunt
      October 17, 2013
      DRAFT: Electronic voting
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
      --Joseph Stalin
       
      The current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting accuracy.
      These machines are so poorly designed that anyone with evil intentions and basic computer
      knowledge can hack them. Many states have decided to use electronic voting machines for the
      foreseeable future. It is important to understand how this system can be unreliable.
      Much of the
      praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines, hinges on their ease of use.
      They can make the entire voting process, from registration to counting, efficient. Technically,
      electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a vote in a referendum or an election,
      including the use of the Internet, but I only want to focus on direct-recording electronic voting
      machines, or DRE voting.
      Many systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed. Most of them
      work on a principle similar to that of the Diebold model. And the Diebold model gets the most
      criticism. One author describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed
      to make an obscure company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely understand
      it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire enough skilled
      people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore. Finally, blame your
      critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This just about sums up the basic flaws of most electronic voting machine production: a
      desire for efficiency outpacing security and safety issues. It almost seems like Diebold and the
      Tyler Hunt
      October 17, 2013
      DRAFT: Electronic voting
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
      --Joseph Stalin
       
      The current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting accuracy.
      These machines are so poorly designed that anyone with evil intentions and basic computer
      knowledge can hack them. Many states have decided to use electronic voting machines for the
      foreseeable future. It is important to understand how this system can be unreliable. Much of the
      praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines, hinges on their ease of use.
      They can make the entire voting process, from registration to counting, efficient. Technically,
      electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a vote in a referendum or an election,
      including the use of the Internet, but I only want to focus on direct-recording electronic voting
      machines, or DRE voting.
      Many systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed. Most of them
      work on a principle similar to that of the Diebold model. And the Diebold model gets the most
      criticism. One author describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed
      to make an obscure company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely understand
      it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire enough skilled
      people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore. Finally, blame your
      critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This just about sums up the basic flaws of most electronic voting machine production: a
      desire for efficiency outpacing security and safety issues. It almost seems like Diebold and the
      Tyler Hunt
      October 17, 2013
      DRAFT: Electronic voting
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
      --Joseph Stalin
       
      The current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting accuracy.
      These machines are so poorly designed that anyone with evil intentions and basic computer
      knowledge can hack them. Many states have decided to use electronic voting machines for the
      foreseeable future. It is important to understand how this system can be unreliable.
      Much of the
      praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines, hinges on their ease of use.
      They can make the entire voting process, from registration to counting, efficient.
      Technically,
      electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a vote in a referendum or an election,
      including the use of the Internet, but I only want to focus on direct-recording electronic voting
      machines, or DRE voting.
      Many systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed.
      Most of them
      work on a principle similar to that of the Diebold model. And the Diebold model gets the most
      criticism. One author describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed
      to make an obscure company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely understand
      it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire enough skilled
      people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore. Finally, blame your
      critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This just about sums up the basic flaws of most electronic voting machine production: a
      desire for efficiency outpacing security and safety issues. It almost seems like Diebold and the
      Tyler Hunt
      October 17, 2013
      DRAFT: Electronic voting
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”
      --Joseph Stalin
       
      The current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting accuracy.
      These machines are so poorly designed that anyone with evil intentions and basic computer
      knowledge can hack them. Many states have decided to use electronic voting machines for the
      foreseeable future. It is important to understand how this system can be unreliable.
      Much of the
      praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines, hinges on their ease of use.
      They can make the entire voting process, from registration to counting, efficient.
      Technically,
      electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a vote in a referendum or an election,
      including the use of the Internet, but I only want to focus on direct-recording electronic voting
      machines, or DRE voting.
      Many systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed. Most of them
      work on a principle similar to that of the Diebold model.
      And the Diebold model gets the most
      criticism. One author describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed
      to make an obscure company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely understand
      it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire enough skilled
      people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore. Finally, blame your
      critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This just about sums up the basic flaws of most electronic voting machine production: a
      desire for efficiency outpacing security and safety issues. It almost seems like Diebold and the
      other companies that make voting machines assumed that if they just made the machine as
      simple as possible for voters to use, that would be enough. But in their haste to get a product on
      the market, to supply machines to many states, and to simplify a hectic electoral system, Diebold
      did really sloppy code work for its machines. Flaws, omissions, patches, bugs, and other
      problems in the Diebold code gave anyone—hackers, political manipulators, even a team of
      professors from Princeton—the ability to make changes.
      Those professors were able to open a Diebold machine and install a virus, all in under two
      minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in a voting booth (Feldman, 2006).
      The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted. It could spread to
      other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it would eventually delete
      itself so as to be undetected.
      So its possible that someone involved in the design, manufacture, or distribution of voting
      machines could manipulate the software before the machines even go to states. Vote fraud could
      be perpetuated on a large scale. Despite this possibility, companies like Diebold refuse to make
      their operations transparent. They are unwilling to let outsiders observe. Some believe that
      their loyalties may be to certain political groups and interests rather than to a fair voting
      process (Rubin, 2006). Others see this as normal business procedure and a desire to maintain
      safe control of their operation. And still many states are still very much interested in their new
      machines.
      The main selling point of most electronic voting machines is their simplicity. Unfortunately,
      this simplicity has eliminated features that would go a long way toward ensuring voter security.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most potential crises in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a separately
      printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. Currently a voter has no way to
      verify his or her vote beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered. These
      other companies that make voting machines assumed that if they just made the machine as
      simple as possible for voters to use, that would be enough. But in their haste to get a product on
      the market, to supply machines to many states, and to simplify a hectic electoral system, Diebold
      did really sloppy code work for its machines. Flaws, omissions, patches, bugs, and other
      problems in the Diebold code gave anyone—hackers, political manipulators, even a team of
      professors from Princeton—the ability to make changes.
      Those professors were able to open a Diebold machine and install a virus, all in under two
      minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in a voting booth (Feldman, 2006).
      The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted. It could spread to
      other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it would eventually delete
      itself so as to be undetected.
      So its possible that someone involved in the design, manufacture, or distribution of voting
      machines could manipulate the software before the machines even go to states. Vote fraud could
      be perpetuated on a large scale. Despite this possibility, companies like Diebold refuse to make
      their operations transparent. They are unwilling to let outsiders observe. Some believe that
      their loyalties may be to certain political groups and interests rather than to a fair voting
      process (Rubin, 2006). Others see this as normal business procedure and a desire to maintain
      safe control of their operation. And still many states are still very much interested in their new
      machines.
      The main selling point of most electronic voting machines is their simplicity. Unfortunately,
      this simplicity has eliminated features that would go a long way toward ensuring voter security.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most potential crises in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a separately
      printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. Currently a voter has no way to
      verify his or her vote beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered. These
      other companies that make voting machines assumed that if they just made the machine as
      simple as possible for voters to use, that would be enough. But in their haste to get a product on
      the market, to supply machines to many states, and to simplify a hectic electoral system, Diebold
      did really sloppy code work for its machines.
      Flaws, omissions, patches, bugs, and other
      problems in the Diebold code gave anyone—hackers, political manipulators, even a team of
      professors from Princeton—the ability to make changes.
      Those professors were able to open a Diebold machine and install a virus, all in under two
      minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in a voting booth (Feldman, 2006).
      The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted.
      It could spread to
      other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it would eventually delete
      itself so as to be undetected.
      So its possible that someone involved in the design, manufacture, or distribution of voting
      machines could manipulate the software before the machines even go to states.
      Vote fraud could
      be perpetuated on a large scale. Despite this possibility, companies like Diebold refuse to make
      their operations transparent. They are unwilling to let outsiders observe. Some believe that
      their loyalties may be to certain political groups and interests rather than to a fair voting
      process (Rubin, 2006). Others see this as normal business procedure and a desire to maintain
      safe control of their operation.
      And still many states are still very much interested in their new
      machines.
      The main selling point of most electronic voting machines is their simplicity. Unfortunately,
      this simplicity has eliminated features that would go a long way toward ensuring voter security.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most potential crises in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a separately
      printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions.
      Currently a voter has no way to
      verify his or her vote beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered. These
      other companies that make voting machines assumed that if they just made the machine as
      simple as possible for voters to use, that would be enough. But in their haste to get a product on
      the market, to supply machines to many states, and to simplify a hectic electoral system, Diebold
      did really sloppy code work for its machines. Flaws, omissions, patches, bugs, and other
      problems in the Diebold code gave anyone—hackers, political manipulators, even a team of
      professors from Princeton—the ability to make changes.
      Those professors were able to open a Diebold machine and install a virus, all in under two
      minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in a voting booth (Feldman, 2006).
      The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted. It could spread to
      other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it would eventually delete
      itself so as to be undetected.
      So its possible that someone involved in the design, manufacture, or distribution of voting
      machines could manipulate the software before the machines even go to states. Vote fraud could
      be perpetuated on a large scale. Despite this possibility, companies like Diebold refuse to make
      their operations transparent. They are unwilling to let outsiders observe. Some believe that
      their loyalties may be to certain political groups and interests rather than to a fair voting
      process (Rubin, 2006). Others see this as normal business procedure and a desire to maintain
      safe control of their operation. And still many states are still very much interested in their new
      machines.
      The main selling point of most electronic voting machines is their simplicity. Unfortunately,
      this simplicity has eliminated features that would go a long way toward ensuring voter security.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most potential crises in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a separately
      printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. Currently a voter has no way to
      verify his or her vote beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered.
      These
      machines claim to store votes securely. If a program has been compromised to change your vote,
      it still might falsely reassure you that your vote has been recorded as you intended. Doug Jones
      says: "For over a decade, all direct recording electronic machines have been required to contain
      redundant storage, but this redundant storage is not an independent record of the votes,
      because it is created by the same software that created the original record" (qtd in ProCon.org,
      2007). An independent paper trail that each voter could use to verify the result would eliminate
      the possibility of election machine fraud. Though some disagree.
      The concern with electronic voting machines is not that their has been fraud on a massive
      scale but that such fraud is possible (Levy, 2006). Yet few people seem to understand or even to
      consider this issue important even though it puts all of democracy at stake. The system is
      susceptible to "wholesale fraud," fraud that affects more than just the machine directly attacked
      (Rubin, 2006). This is possible through the installation of software or evil code at the time of
      manufacture or the spread of a virus through systems that use a contaminated memory card.
      These viruses can steal votes and delete themselves before any detection of their activities can
      take place. Despite these problems, electronic voting machines will have a bright future if the
      companies that design and manufacture them can improve them so that they are safe, reliable,
      and affordable.
      machines claim to store votes securely. If a program has been compromised to change your vote,
      it still might falsely reassure you that your vote has been recorded as you intended.
      Doug Jones
      says: "For over a decade, all direct recording electronic machines have been required to contain
      redundant storage, but this redundant storage is not an independent record of the votes,
      because it is created by the same software that created the original record" (qtd in ProCon.org,
      2007). An independent paper trail that each voter could use to verify the result would eliminate
      the possibility of election machine fraud. Though some disagree.
      The concern with electronic voting machines is not that their has been fraud on a massive
      scale but that such fraud is possible (Levy, 2006). Yet few people seem to understand or even to
      consider this issue important even though it puts all of democracy at stake. The system is
      susceptible to "wholesale fraud," fraud that affects more than just the machine directly attacked
      (Rubin, 2006). This is possible through the installation of software or evil code at the time of
      manufacture or the spread of a virus through systems that use a contaminated memory card.
      These viruses can steal votes and delete themselves before any detection of their activities can
      take place. Despite these problems, electronic voting machines will have a bright future if the
      companies that design and manufacture them can improve them so that they are safe, reliable,
      and affordable.

      References

      Feldman, A. (2006, September 13). Security analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine. Retrieved from http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
      Gimbel, B. (2006, November 3). Rage against the machine. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/ 11/13/8393084/index.htm
      ProCon.org. (2007). Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? Retrieved from http://www.votingmachinesprocon.org
      Rubin, A. D. (2006). Brave new ballot: Battle to safeguard democracy in the age of electronic voting. New York: Morgan Road.
    • Running head: ELECTRONIC VOTING
      1
      Electronic Voting Only Sounds Like a Good Idea
      Tyler Hunt
      Utah State University
      November 5, 2013
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      2
      Electronic Voting Only Sounds Like a Good Idea
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” That
      statement may seem Machiavellian or just plain pessimistic, but consider its source: Josef
      Stalin. The Soviet Union’s former dictator realized the power of elections to give a regime at
      least a veneer of legitimacy—and so his words remind us how important it is for voters to trust
      that elections are fair and that votes are accurately counted.
      After the problems with manual vote counting in Florida in the 2002 presidential
      election, many states moved to electronic voting machines. In this paper, I hope to show how,
      unfortunately, the current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting
      accuracy. Much of the praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines,
      hinges on their ease of use and their ability to make the entire voting process, from registration
      to counting, efficient. Technically, electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a
      vote in a referendum or an election, including the use of the Internet. Because using the
      Internet to vote is almost universally seen as unsafe and riddled with possible points of attack
      or fraud, I focus here on direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DRE voting. I hope
      to show that voters should currently resist DRE voting machines for three reasons: first, the
      machines do not yet function solidly enough; second, they are vulnerable to manipulation;
      third, they do not yet give voters a record of their votes.
      My first point is that the machines do not yet function solidly enough. While many
      systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed, most of them work on a
      principle similar to that of the Diebold model. The Diebold company started producing safes in
      the 19th century, and in the 1970s started producing ATM machines. In 2002, the company
      acquired another company that produced touch-screen voting machines, and so Diebold
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      2
      Electronic Voting Only Sounds Like a Good Idea
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” That
      statement may seem Machiavellian or just plain pessimistic, but consider its source: Josef
      Stalin. The Soviet Union’s former dictator realized the power of elections to give a regime at
      least a veneer of legitimacy—and so his words remind us how important it is for voters to trust
      that elections are fair and that votes are accurately counted.
      After the problems with manual vote counting in Florida in the 2002 presidential
      election, many states moved to electronic voting machines. In this paper, I hope to show how,
      unfortunately, the current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting
      accuracy. Much of the praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines,
      hinges on their ease of use and their ability to make the entire voting process, from registration
      to counting, efficient. Technically, electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a
      vote in a referendum or an election, including the use of the Internet. Because using the
      Internet to vote is almost universally seen as unsafe and riddled with possible points of attack
      or fraud, I focus here on direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DRE voting.
      I hope
      to show that voters should currently resist DRE voting machines for three reasons: first, the
      machines do not yet function solidly enough; second, they are vulnerable to manipulation;
      third, they do not yet give voters a record of their votes.
      My first point is that the machines do not yet function solidly enough.
      While many
      systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed, most of them work on a
      principle similar to that of the Diebold model. The Diebold company started producing safes in
      the 19th century, and in the 1970s started producing ATM machines. In 2002, the company
      acquired another company that produced touch-screen voting machines, and so Diebold
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      2
      Electronic Voting Only Sounds Like a Good Idea
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” That
      statement may seem Machiavellian or just plain pessimistic, but consider its source: Josef
      Stalin. The Soviet Union’s former dictator realized the power of elections to give a regime at
      least a veneer of legitimacy—and so his words remind us how important it is for voters to trust
      that elections are fair and that votes are accurately counted.
      After the problems with manual vote counting in Florida in the 2002 presidential
      election, many states moved to electronic voting machines. In this paper, I hope to show how,
      unfortunately, the current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting
      accuracy. Much of the praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines,
      hinges on their ease of use and their ability to make the entire voting process, from registration
      to counting, efficient. Technically, electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a
      vote in a referendum or an election, including the use of the Internet. Because using the
      Internet to vote is almost universally seen as unsafe and riddled with possible points of attack
      or fraud, I focus here on direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DRE voting.
      I hope
      to show that voters should currently resist DRE voting machines for three reasons: first, the
      machines do not yet function solidly enough; second, they are vulnerable to manipulation;
      third, they do not yet give voters a record of their votes.
      My first point is that the machines do not yet function solidly enough.
      While many
      systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed, most of them work on a
      principle similar to that of the Diebold model. The Diebold company started producing safes in
      the 19th century, and in the 1970s started producing ATM machines. In 2002, the company
      acquired another company that produced touch-screen voting machines, and so Diebold
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      2
      Electronic Voting Only Sounds Like a Good Idea
      “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.” That
      statement may seem Machiavellian or just plain pessimistic, but consider its source: Josef
      Stalin. The Soviet Union’s former dictator realized the power of elections to give a regime at
      least a veneer of legitimacy—and so his words remind us how important it is for voters to trust
      that elections are fair and that votes are accurately counted.
      After the problems with manual vote counting in Florida in the 2002 presidential
      election, many states moved to electronic voting machines. In this paper, I hope to show how,
      unfortunately, the current use of electronic voting machines in U. S. elections threatens voting
      accuracy.
      Much of the praise of electronic machines, also called direct recording machines,
      hinges on their ease of use and their ability to make the entire voting process, from registration
      to counting, efficient.
      Technically, electronic voting includes any electronic means of casting a
      vote in a referendum or an election, including the use of the Internet. Because using the
      Internet to vote is almost universally seen as unsafe and riddled with possible points of attack
      or fraud, I focus here on direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DRE voting. I hope
      to show that voters should currently resist DRE voting machines for three reasons: first, the
      machines do not yet function solidly enough; second, they are vulnerable to manipulation;
      third, they do not yet give voters a record of their votes.
      My first point is that the machines do not yet function solidly enough.
      While many
      systems of DRE voting are currently in production or being designed, most of them work on a
      principle similar to that of the Diebold model.
      The Diebold company started producing safes in
      the 19th century, and in the 1970s started producing ATM machines. In 2002, the company
      acquired another company that produced touch-screen voting machines, and so Diebold
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      3
      entered the DRE voting arena. Diebold voting machines are now the most widely used—and
      were also the most widely criticized in the 2004 elections in several states. One author
      describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed to make an obscure
      company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely
      understand it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire
      enough skilled people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore.
      Finally, blame your critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This sums up what has flawed most electronic voting machine production: a desire for
      efficiency outpacing security concerns. In their haste to get machines to market—and without
      extensive testing—companies have produced flawed machines. In March 2008, for example,
      Ohio carried out the "Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards &
      Testing" (or EVEREST) process, “in which ‘critical security failures’ were found in every
      system tested by several teams of both corporate and academic computer scientists and security
      experts” (Friedman, 2008, para. 3); the testing found that some machines made by a subsidiary
      of Diebold could not keep accurate vote counts. In fall 2012, voters using electronic touch
      screen machines in North Carolina noticed that their votes were switched to the other
      candidate; an election official said “it's not a conspiracy, it's just a machine that needs to be
      corrected” (Clayton, 2012, para. 21).
      The problems I just noted result from how the machines work in and of themselves—
      what happens if someone wants to make intentional changes in how the machines count votes?
      A team of professors from Princeton University demonstrated how easy it would be for
      someone to manipulate the Diebold code, making my second point about how vulnerable the
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      3
      entered the DRE voting arena. Diebold voting machines are now the most widely used—and
      were also the most widely criticized in the 2004 elections in several states. One author
      describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed to make an obscure
      company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely
      understand it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire
      enough skilled people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore.
      Finally, blame your critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This sums up what has flawed most electronic voting machine production: a desire for
      efficiency outpacing security concerns. In their haste to get machines to market—and without
      extensive testing—companies have produced flawed machines. In March 2008, for example,
      Ohio carried out the "Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards &
      Testing" (or EVEREST) process, “in which ‘critical security failures’ were found in every
      system tested by several teams of both corporate and academic computer scientists and security
      experts” (Friedman, 2008, para. 3); the testing found that some machines made by a subsidiary
      of Diebold could not keep accurate vote counts. In fall 2012, voters using electronic touch
      screen machines in North Carolina noticed that their votes were switched to the other
      candidate; an election official said “it's not a conspiracy, it's just a machine that needs to be
      corrected” (Clayton, 2012, para. 21).
      The problems I just noted result from how the machines work in and of themselves—
      what happens if someone wants to make intentional changes in how the machines count votes?
      A team of professors from Princeton University demonstrated how easy it would be for
      someone to manipulate the Diebold code, making my second point about how vulnerable the
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      3
      entered the DRE voting arena. Diebold voting machines are now the most widely used—and
      were also the most widely criticized in the 2004 elections in several states. One author
      describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed to make an obscure
      company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely
      understand it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire
      enough skilled people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore.
      Finally, blame your critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This sums up what has flawed most electronic voting machine production: a desire for
      efficiency outpacing security concerns. In their haste to get machines to market—and without
      extensive testing—companies have produced flawed machines. In March 2008, for example,
      Ohio carried out the "Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards &
      Testing" (or EVEREST) process, “in which ‘critical security failures’ were found in every
      system tested by several teams of both corporate and academic computer scientists and security
      experts” (Friedman, 2008, para. 3); the testing found that some machines made by a subsidiary
      of Diebold could not keep accurate vote counts. In fall 2012, voters using electronic touch
      screen machines in North Carolina noticed that their votes were switched to the other
      candidate; an election official said “it's not a conspiracy, it's just a machine that needs to be
      corrected” (Clayton, 2012, para. 21).
      The problems I just noted result from how the machines work in and of themselves—
      what happens if someone wants to make intentional changes in how the machines count votes?
      A team of professors from Princeton University demonstrated how easy it would be for
      someone to manipulate the Diebold code, making my second point about how vulnerable the
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      3
      entered the DRE voting arena. Diebold voting machines are now the most widely used—and
      were also the most widely criticized in the 2004 elections in several states. One author
      describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed to make an obscure
      company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely
      understand it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire
      enough skilled people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore.
      Finally, blame your critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This sums up what has flawed most electronic voting machine production: a desire for
      efficiency outpacing security concerns. In their haste to get machines to market—and without
      extensive testing—companies have produced flawed machines. In March 2008, for example,
      Ohio carried out the "Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards &
      Testing" (or EVEREST) process, “in which ‘critical security failures’ were found in every
      system tested by several teams of both corporate and academic computer scientists and security
      experts” (Friedman, 2008, para. 3); the testing found that some machines made by a subsidiary
      of Diebold could not keep accurate vote counts.
      In fall 2012, voters using electronic touch
      screen machines in North Carolina noticed that their votes were switched to the other
      candidate; an election official said “it's not a conspiracy, it's just a machine that needs to be
      corrected” (Clayton, 2012, para. 21).
      The problems I just noted result from how the machines work in and of themselves—
      what happens if someone wants to make intentional changes in how the machines count votes?
      A team of professors from Princeton University demonstrated how easy it would be for
      someone to manipulate the Diebold code, making my second point about how vulnerable the
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      3
      entered the DRE voting arena. Diebold voting machines are now the most widely used—and
      were also the most widely criticized in the 2004 elections in several states. One author
      describes what has happened with Diebold as a “five-step plan guaranteed to make an obscure
      company absolutely notorious”:
      First get into a business you don't understand, selling to customers who barely
      understand it either. Then roll out your product without adequate testing. Don't hire
      enough skilled people. When people notice problems, deny, obfuscate and ignore.
      Finally, blame your critics when it all blows up in your face. (Gimbel, 2006)
      This sums up what has flawed most electronic voting machine production: a desire for
      efficiency outpacing security concerns. In their haste to get machines to market—and without
      extensive testing—companies have produced flawed machines. In March 2008, for example,
      Ohio carried out the "Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards &
      Testing" (or EVEREST) process, “in which ‘critical security failures’ were found in every
      system tested by several teams of both corporate and academic computer scientists and security
      experts” (Friedman, 2008, para. 3); the testing found that some machines made by a subsidiary
      of Diebold could not keep accurate vote counts. In fall 2012, voters using electronic touch
      screen machines in North Carolina noticed that their votes were switched to the other
      candidate; an election official said “it's not a conspiracy, it's just a machine that needs to be
      corrected” (Clayton, 2012, para. 21).
      The problems I just noted result from how the machines work in and of themselves—
      what happens if someone wants to make intentional changes in how the machines count votes?
      A team of professors from Princeton University demonstrated how easy it would be for
      someone to manipulate the Diebold code, making my second point about how vulnerable the
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      4
      machines are to being manipulated. The professors were able to open a Diebold machine and
      install a virus, all in under two minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in
      a voting booth. The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted; it
      could spread to other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it could
      eventually delete itself so as to be undetected. (The professors posted a video of their work
      online and a complete description of their methods appears on the Princeton University Web
      site [Feldman, 2006].) Later, in 2012, a different team of computer scientists from the
      University of Connecticut described how they were able to “attack” a more recent version of
      the Diebold machines: using “precisely the same information and access to the system that is
      normally available to, for example, election administrators (supervisors, poll workers and other
      officials)” (Davtyan, Kiayias, Michel, Russell, & Shvartsman, 1490), they swapped votes for
      candidates in “only a few minutes” without leaving any evidence that the machines were doing
      anything but “functioning normally for all operations during the election” (Davtyan et. al.,
      1492).
      Perhaps even more frightening is the possibility that someone involved in the design,
      manufacturing, or distribution of voting machines could manipulate the software before the
      machines even go to states. Vote fraud could be perpetuated on a large scale, potentially in all
      states that use the new technology.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most of the problems in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a
      separately printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. This is my third point
      about the problems with these machines: currently a voter has no way to verify his or her vote
      beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered. These machines claim to
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      4
      machines are to being manipulated.
      The professors were able to open a Diebold machine and
      install a virus, all in under two minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in
      a voting booth. The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted; it
      could spread to other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it could
      eventually delete itself so as to be undetected. (The professors posted a video of their work
      online and a complete description of their methods appears on the Princeton University Web
      site [Feldman, 2006].) Later, in 2012, a different team of computer scientists from the
      University of Connecticut described how they were able to “attack” a more recent version of
      the Diebold machines: using “precisely the same information and access to the system that is
      normally available to, for example, election administrators (supervisors, poll workers and other
      officials)” (Davtyan, Kiayias, Michel, Russell, & Shvartsman, 1490), they swapped votes for
      candidates in “only a few minutes” without leaving any evidence that the machines were doing
      anything but “functioning normally for all operations during the election” (Davtyan et. al.,
      1492).
      Perhaps even more frightening is the possibility that someone involved in the design,
      manufacturing, or distribution of voting machines could manipulate the software before the
      machines even go to states. Vote fraud could be perpetuated on a large scale, potentially in all
      states that use the new technology.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most of the problems in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a
      separately printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. This is my third point
      about the problems with these machines: currently a voter has no way to verify his or her vote
      beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered.
      These machines claim to
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      4
      machines are to being manipulated. The professors were able to open a Diebold machine and
      install a virus, all in under two minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in
      a voting booth. The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted; it
      could spread to other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it could
      eventually delete itself so as to be undetected. (The professors posted a video of their work
      online and a complete description of their methods appears on the Princeton University Web
      site [Feldman, 2006].) Later, in 2012, a different team of computer scientists from the
      University of Connecticut described how they were able to “attack” a more recent version of
      the Diebold machines: using “precisely the same information and access to the system that is
      normally available to, for example, election administrators (supervisors, poll workers and other
      officials)” (Davtyan, Kiayias, Michel, Russell, & Shvartsman, 1490), they swapped votes for
      candidates in “only a few minutes” without leaving any evidence that the machines were doing
      anything but “functioning normally for all operations during the election” (Davtyan et. al.,
      1492).
      Perhaps even more frightening is the possibility that someone involved in the design,
      manufacturing, or distribution of voting machines could manipulate the software before the
      machines even go to states. Vote fraud could be perpetuated on a large scale, potentially in all
      states that use the new technology.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most of the problems in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a
      separately printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. This is my third point
      about the problems with these machines: currently a voter has no way to verify his or her vote
      beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered. These machines claim to
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      4
      machines are to being manipulated.
      The professors were able to open a Diebold machine and
      install a virus, all in under two minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in
      a voting booth. The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted; it
      could spread to other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it could
      eventually delete itself so as to be undetected. (The professors posted a video of their work
      online and a complete description of their methods appears on the Princeton University Web
      site [Feldman, 2006].)
      Later, in 2012, a different team of computer scientists from the
      University of Connecticut described how they were able to “attack” a more recent version of
      the Diebold machines: using “precisely the same information and access to the system that is
      normally available to, for example, election administrators (supervisors, poll workers and other
      officials)” (Davtyan, Kiayias, Michel, Russell, & Shvartsman, 1490), they swapped votes for
      candidates in “only a few minutes” without leaving any evidence that the machines were doing
      anything but “functioning normally for all operations during the election” (Davtyan et. al.,
      1492).
      Perhaps even more frightening is the possibility that someone involved in the design,
      manufacturing, or distribution of voting machines could manipulate the software before the
      machines even go to states. Vote fraud could be perpetuated on a large scale, potentially in all
      states that use the new technology.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most of the problems in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a
      separately printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. This is my third point
      about the problems with these machines: currently a voter has no way to verify his or her vote
      beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered.
      These machines claim to
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      4
      machines are to being manipulated. The professors were able to open a Diebold machine and
      install a virus, all in under two minutes—which is all the time someone might normally take in
      a voting booth. The professors’ virus could influence election results however they wanted; it
      could spread to other machines that shared cards with the infected machine, and it could
      eventually delete itself so as to be undetected. (The professors posted a video of their work
      online and a complete description of their methods appears on the Princeton University Web
      site [Feldman, 2006].)
      Later, in 2012, a different team of computer scientists from the
      University of Connecticut described how they were able to “attack” a more recent version of
      the Diebold machines: using “precisely the same information and access to the system that is
      normally available to, for example, election administrators (supervisors, poll workers and other
      officials)” (Davtyan, Kiayias, Michel, Russell, & Shvartsman, 1490), they swapped votes for
      candidates in “only a few minutes” without leaving any evidence that the machines were doing
      anything but “functioning normally for all operations during the election” (Davtyan et. al.,
      1492).
      Perhaps even more frightening is the possibility that someone involved in the design,
      manufacturing, or distribution of voting machines could manipulate the software before the
      machines even go to states. Vote fraud could be perpetuated on a large scale, potentially in all
      states that use the new technology.
      According to some scientists, including Professor Aviel Rubin (2006) of John Hopkins
      University, most of the problems in electronic voting could be avoided by providing a
      separately printed and counted paper record of each voter's decisions. This is my third point
      about the problems with these machines: currently a voter has no way to verify his or her vote
      beyond trusting the machine into which the vote has been entered.
      These machines claim to
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      5
      store votes securely, but if a program has been compromised to change your vote, what will
      stop it from falsely reassuring you that your vote has been recorded as you intended? Doug
      Jones explains: "For over a decade, all direct recording electronic machines have been required
      to contain redundant storage, but this redundant storage is not an independent record of the
      votes, because it is created by the same software that created the original record" (qtd in
      ProCon.org, 2007). An independent paper trail that each voter could use to verify the result
      would go a long way toward reducing the possibility of election machine fraud.
      Those who argue against voter-verified paper trails cite the increased cost and effort
      necessary to organize an election process in which electronic voting machines must be
      procured and maintained and, at the same time, paper ballots must be handled carefully and
      separately. The costs of printing, equipment malfunctions, slowdowns due to voter confusion,
      and other factors are judged by some to be too high. Another concern is the electronic
      machines themselves. Critics of implementing paper trails ask, if a machine has been tampered
      with so that it does not accurately record a voter's intention despite informing the voter that it
      has done do, what is to stop it from voiding a correct paper ballot as soon as the voter leaves
      the booth and printing out a new one with doctored results (ProCon.org, 2007)?
      Perhaps the most reliable method of eliminating the problem of accuracy would be to
      have each voter check the paper copy of his or her vote and then place it in a receptacle where
      all votes will be stored and later tabulated if necessary. In this way the voter will know that the
      record is separate from the machine, and the only way to tamper with the paper records will be
      by human intervention—which is a problem in any system. As for the problem of cost and
      additional work, the critics have a valid point. The paper trail will increase costs and make the
      entire process a little more complicated and time consuming. Do we want to pay a bit more for
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      5
      store votes securely, but if a program has been compromised to change your vote, what will
      stop it from falsely reassuring you that your vote has been recorded as you intended?
      Doug
      Jones explains: "For over a decade, all direct recording electronic machines have been required
      to contain redundant storage, but this redundant storage is not an independent record of the
      votes, because it is created by the same software that created the original record" (qtd in
      ProCon.org, 2007). An independent paper trail that each voter could use to verify the result
      would go a long way toward reducing the possibility of election machine fraud.
      Those who argue against voter-verified paper trails cite the increased cost and effort
      necessary to organize an election process in which electronic voting machines must be
      procured and maintained and, at the same time, paper ballots must be handled carefully and
      separately. The costs of printing, equipment malfunctions, slowdowns due to voter confusion,
      and other factors are judged by some to be too high. Another concern is the electronic
      machines themselves. Critics of implementing paper trails ask, if a machine has been tampered
      with so that it does not accurately record a voter's intention despite informing the voter that it
      has done do, what is to stop it from voiding a correct paper ballot as soon as the voter leaves
      the booth and printing out a new one with doctored results (ProCon.org, 2007)?
      Perhaps the most reliable method of eliminating the problem of accuracy would be to
      have each voter check the paper copy of his or her vote and then place it in a receptacle where
      all votes will be stored and later tabulated if necessary. In this way the voter will know that the
      record is separate from the machine, and the only way to tamper with the paper records will be
      by human intervention—which is a problem in any system. As for the problem of cost and
      additional work, the critics have a valid point. The paper trail will increase costs and make the
      entire process a little more complicated and time consuming. Do we want to pay a bit more for
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      6
      a safe and secure vote? Can we put a price on reliable democratic process?
      I hope I have demonstrated that current electronic voting machines should not be
      trusted with our votes until the machines are designed to be more trustworthy, cannot be so
      easily hacked, and provide voters with a physical record of their vote.
      ELECTRONIC VOTING
      7

      References

      Clayton, M. (2012, October 26). Could e-voting machines in election 2012 be hacked? Yes. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2012/1026/Could-e-voting-machines-in-Election-2012-be-hacked-Yes
      Davtyan, S., Kiayias, A., Michel, L., Russell, A., Shvartsman, A. A. (2012). Integrity of electronic voting systems: Fallacious use of crytography. Applied Computing: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium 25–29 March 2012 (pp.1486-1493). Riva del Garda, Italy.
      Feldman, A. (2006, September 13). Security analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine. Retrieved from http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
      Friedman, B. (2008, October 8). Q&A: E-voting security results 'awful,' says Ohio secretary of state. Computerworld. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9116465/Q_A_E_voting_security_results_awful_says_Ohio_secretary_of_state
      Gimbel, B. (2006, November 3). Rage against the machine. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/ 11/13/8393084/index.htm
      ProCon.org. (2007). Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? Retrieved from http://www.votingmachinesprocon.org
      Rubin, A. D. (2006). Brave new ballot: Battle to safeguard democracy in the age of electronic voting. New York: Morgan Road.

  • draft

    major revisions

    final paper

    • Harley

    • Harley's teacher

    • Hi, I’m Harley.

      To read about how and why I revised my paper, click the numbered buttons to the left. You can also read my draft and then my final revised version by clicking the little page thumbnails. (You can also see how my peers -- and teacher -- responded to my first draft if you go to the "Peer Response" module. And in the "Sample Papers" module you can read my final paper with annotations explaining its different parts.)

      If you want to hear my teacher’s thoughts on my revisions, click her picture above and then click the numbered buttons.

    • All the feedback I received said that my conclusion seemed to make a new argument that wasn’t in the rest of my paper. And when I went back and looked closely at my final paragraph I could see that, too. When I was writing the draft it’s almost like the writing took its own direction as I was figuring out the connections between ideas.

      And that new argument made sense to me and seemed more focused than my original argument.

      So I revised my thesis statement to this—

      Civility—which is about helping us discuss controversial matters with others—focuses only on our attitudes towards others and not on our attitudes toward our own ideas; therefore, to achieve the goals of civility, civility needs to have awareness of our own confirmation bias added to it.

      —and used that to help me shape my revision.

      Because of that, the final paper has a more focused introduction. The argument is clearer throughout the whole paper now, too.

    • A big part of my argument depends on me being able to persuade my readers that civility and democracy are connected.

      Civility is about our individual behavior with each other, but democracy is about how the government works—and so there isn’t an obvious connection between them.

      In my first draft, readers said that my writing wasn’t persuading them of that connection.

      After I got that feedback, I went and found more sources that helped me make that connection—and I spent more direct time in my writing on that connection, giving it more space.

    • The third biggest revision was a hard one. My teacher told me I should have confidence and just try—and I think it worked.

      In my first draft I had a lot of quotations. I was worried that if I didn’t quote my sources a lot then my readers wouldn’t think I had the authority to say anything. But my teacher said that being able to summarize a source shows that you have better hold on it.

      So in revising I worked hard at summarizing my sources.

      The part I am proudest of (and that made me most nervous) was when I made a big shift in how I defined “civility” between my draft and my final. In my draft I have almost a page and a half for defining “civility.” I used three really long quotations.

      In my final version, I have one paragraph that uses two very short quotations and then I say this: “What all the definitions I read share is the importance of listening to others with respect, which means acting toward others’ words and ideas as though you trust them to have good reasons for their beliefs and opinions.”

      I think that’s a smart sounding sentence! And by summarizing like that all the way through, I was able to give my arguments more space.

    • My fourth biggest revision is with transitions throughout my whole paper.

      When I got feedback from others they often said that they sometimes had trouble following why I was taking them from one paragraph to the next.

      So in my revision I worked hard at using strategies for helping readers understand why I was taking them from one paragraph to the next. I repeated terms and also explained why I was moving from one idea to another.

      For example, in my draft when I finished defining “civility” I just started talking about connections between civility and democracy. In my revision, I made a transition between those two parts by putting in this sentence: “Why does showing such respect to others in discussions about difficult topics—being civil—matter in a democracy?”

      I did things like that throughout my whole paper—and the feedback I got shows that people can follow all my arguments.

      Yay!

    • Hi there. I am Harley's teacher, Tatiana Komova.

      To learn about how Harley revised her research paper on civility and democracy, click the numbered buttons to the left.

      Harley should be proud of her work here. She found a lot of good sources to begin with, and thought a lot about how her own personal, family experiences connect with larger issues. Her first draft was good, but -- as with all drafts! -- the ideas in it could be developed more and made stronger for readers.

      I am happy with how Harley stayed with this, finding still new sources, working hard to clarify her argument to herself, and giving herself enough time to see the quality of work she can produce.

      Most importantly, she was willing truly to revise and not just edit! I applaud her work on this, and hope you can see how good her revisions are.

    • It is not at all unusual that a writer finds her real argument in the the final paragraph of a draft.

      After all, writing is a form of thinking. When you write a draft, you are linking ideas and finding how they build in response to each other. It can can feel as though the writing has its own logic.

      And so I wasn’t surprised to see that the final paragraph of Harley’s draft contained a succinct statement of a new argument that was tied to her old argument but that was clearer and more focused.

      I am happy that Harley listened to the feedback she received and she did the work to revise her thesis statement so that she would be as clear as possible about what she was arguing.

      She should be proud of this major revision—both because she tried it but also because it turned out so well!

    • I hope Harley realizes that—when you have to find new sources for a revision—that you often find truly useful and focused sources.

      When you have already written a draft and then go look for new sources, you know quite well exactly what you need to help you think about what you need to think about.

      And that was certainly the case for Harley. The new sources she found on the history of civility help her both to define civility but also to show the connection between civility and democracy—which is a connection she needed to make more strong in her revision.

    • Harley should indeed be proud of herself for her bravery in summarizing her sources.

      I know that summary can be difficult because it requires working hard to understand a source. And then it does take bravery to risk summarizing a source in your writing for others to read and critique.

      Harley did a good job with this and ended up using summary very very well in her revision.

      I hope all my students learn that, while summary takes time, being able to summarize a source really shows that you understand the source. (And I also want them to understand that if you can’t summarize a source then you need to re-read and re-think.)

      But only by being able to summarize a source can you get to the heart of ideas—and that is how you truly learn to think for yourself.

    • Harley’s decision to focus on the transitions in her revision was a good one.

      There’s so much that goes into making writing invite readers into reading—including focused, helpful transitions.

      As a writer, you do know (I hope!) why you have placed your paragraphs in order. But unless you help your readers with your transitions, readers cannot read your mind.

      By repeating your main terms and by sometimes telling readers explicitly why you are moving from one paragraph to the next—one idea to the next—you can help them focus on your arguments instead of making them try to figure out the connections.

      You can think of transitions as like signposts: On the journey that readers take through your writing, transitions are like the places where you say to a reader “Turn left here” or “Stay on the path.” Such places help readers feel confident that you know where you are going and can tell them, too.

    • I want to eat dinner without yelling
      My father can roast a chicken so perfect it looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the dinner table (where I’m sitting with my mother, brothers, grandfather, uncle,
      and aunt) I think we will have a dinner like I see in those old black and white happy family
      movies my granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up
      screaming at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don’t know why
      we keep doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered quickly that what
      happens at our dinner table is a sign of something much larger. Many families have trouble with
      controversial topics, but so do we as a country. From my research I learned that being able to
      talk about controversial topics is necessary for having a democracy and for having the freedom
      that we seek in a democracy. Being able to talk about controversial topics helps us avoid
      government repression.
      To argue why being able to talk (and not scream and rile up our stomachs) about
      controversial topics is necessary for the kind of country I think we all want, I need to define
      “civility.” I need to describe the behaviors and attitudes that make civility possible. I need to
      describe what happens when people don’t try to be civil.
       
      I found several writers who define “civility.” Chesire Calhoun writes that, “The civil citizen
      exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She respects the rights of
      others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion, does not show contempt
      for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy.” (256) He argues that
      First, civility signals others’ willingness to have us as co-participants in practices ranging from
      political dialogues, to campus communities, to funerals, to sharing public highways. Second,
      I want to eat dinner without yelling
      My father can roast a chicken so perfect it looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the dinner table (where I’m sitting with my mother, brothers, grandfather, uncle,
      and aunt) I think we will have a dinner like I see in those old black and white happy family
      movies my granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up
      screaming at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don’t know why
      we keep doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered quickly that what
      happens at our dinner table is a sign of something much larger. Many families have trouble with
      controversial topics, but so do we as a country. From my research I learned that being able to
      talk about controversial topics is necessary for having a democracy and for having the freedom
      that we seek in a democracy. Being able to talk about controversial topics helps us avoid
      government repression.
      To argue why being able to talk (and not scream and rile up our stomachs) about
      controversial topics is necessary for the kind of country I think we all want, I need to define
      “civility.” I need to describe the behaviors and attitudes that make civility possible. I need to
      describe what happens when people don’t try to be civil.
       
      I found several writers who define “civility.” Chesire Calhoun writes that, “The civil citizen
      exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She respects the rights of
      others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion, does not show contempt
      for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy.” (256) He argues that
      First, civility signals others’ willingness to have us as co-participants in practices ranging from
      political dialogues, to campus communities, to funerals, to sharing public highways. Second,
      I want to eat dinner without yelling
      My father can roast a chicken so perfect it looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the dinner table (where I’m sitting with my mother, brothers, grandfather, uncle,
      and aunt) I think we will have a dinner like I see in those old black and white happy family
      movies my granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up
      screaming at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don’t know why
      we keep doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered quickly that what
      happens at our dinner table is a sign of something much larger. Many families have trouble with
      controversial topics, but so do we as a country. From my research I learned that being able to
      talk about controversial topics is necessary for having a democracy and for having the freedom
      that we seek in a democracy. Being able to talk about controversial topics helps us avoid
      government repression.
      To argue why being able to talk (and not scream and rile up our stomachs) about
      controversial topics is necessary for the kind of country I think we all want, I need to define
      “civility.” I need to describe the behaviors and attitudes that make civility possible. I need to
      describe what happens when people don’t try to be civil.
       
      I found several writers who define “civility.” Chesire Calhoun writes that, “The civil citizen
      exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She respects the rights of
      others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion, does not show contempt
      for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy.” (256) He argues that
      First, civility signals others’ willingness to have us as co-participants in practices ranging from
      political dialogues, to campus communities, to funerals, to sharing public highways. Second,
      I want to eat dinner without yelling
      My father can roast a chicken so perfect it looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the dinner table (where I’m sitting with my mother, brothers, grandfather, uncle,
      and aunt) I think we will have a dinner like I see in those old black and white happy family
      movies my granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up
      screaming at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don’t know why
      we keep doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered quickly that what
      happens at our dinner table is a sign of something much larger. Many families have trouble with
      controversial topics, but so do we as a country. From my research I learned that being able to
      talk about controversial topics is necessary for having a democracy and for having the freedom
      that we seek in a democracy. Being able to talk about controversial topics helps us avoid
      government repression.
      To argue why being able to talk (and not scream and rile up our stomachs) about
      controversial topics is necessary for the kind of country I think we all want, I need to define
      “civility.”
      I need to describe the behaviors and attitudes that make civility possible. I need to
      describe what happens when people don’t try to be civil.
       
      I found several writers who define “civility.”
      Chesire Calhoun writes that, “The civil citizen
      exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She respects the rights of
      others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion, does not show contempt
      for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy.” (256) He argues that
      First, civility signals others’ willingness to have us as co-participants in practices ranging from
      political dialogues, to campus communities, to funerals, to sharing public highways. Second,
      for those who are not already coerced into sharing social practices with us, civility may be a
      precondition of their willingness to enter and continue in cooperative ventures with us. Third,
      civility supports self-esteem by offering token reminders that we are regarded as worth
      respecting, tolerating, and considering. (266)
      Similarly, Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders define “civility” as “behavior in public which
      demonstrates respect for others and which entails curtailing one’s own immediate self-interest
      when appropriate” (33). A virtue that “aids social cooperation,” and is an “alternative to
      repression.” Without civility there is a danger of repression because
      different individuals will always want and desire different and incompatible things, and their
      unfettered pursuit of their own objectives will inevitably bring them into conflict. The
      question, therefore, is how (as well as how far) individual liberties are to be restricted or
      restrained. In the end, this will either be done by external political agencies of the state, or it
      will be achieved through enlightened self-regulation. (34)
      Calhoun argues that “A principal point of having norms of civility is to regulate discussion of
      controversial subjects so that dialogue among those who disagree will continue rather than
      break down” (269). So according to Calhoun if we do not have an ability to talk with each other,
      there is danger of society breaking down; Billante and Saunders argue that if we want a society
      with “individual liberties” we either have civility—where we respect each other’s opinions no
      matter whether we agree—or we have a repressive government that forces people to live
      together in one country under imposed rule.
      If we don’t want our country to fall apart into chaos, or to become a place where the
      government tells us what we can or cannot say to each other, then we have to learn to be civil to
      each other.
      The definitions I gave above of civility imply what we each need to do in order to be civil to
      each other. Billante and Saunders describe that being civil requires: 1) Respect for others; 2)
      for those who are not already coerced into sharing social practices with us, civility may be a
      precondition of their willingness to enter and continue in cooperative ventures with us. Third,
      civility supports self-esteem by offering token reminders that we are regarded as worth
      respecting, tolerating, and considering. (266)
      Similarly, Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders define “civility” as “behavior in public which
      demonstrates respect for others and which entails curtailing one’s own immediate self-interest
      when appropriate” (33). A virtue that “aids social cooperation,” and is an “alternative to
      repression.” Without civility there is a danger of repression because
      different individuals will always want and desire different and incompatible things, and their
      unfettered pursuit of their own objectives will inevitably bring them into conflict. The
      question, therefore, is how (as well as how far) individual liberties are to be restricted or
      restrained. In the end, this will either be done by external political agencies of the state, or it
      will be achieved through enlightened self-regulation. (34)
      Calhoun argues that “A principal point of having norms of civility is to regulate discussion of
      controversial subjects so that dialogue among those who disagree will continue rather than
      break down” (269). So according to Calhoun if we do not have an ability to talk with each other,
      there is danger of society breaking down; Billante and Saunders argue that if we want a society
      with “individual liberties” we either have civility—where we respect each other’s opinions no
      matter whether we agree—or we have a repressive government that forces people to live
      together in one country under imposed rule.
      If we don’t want our country to fall apart into chaos, or to become a place where the
      government tells us what we can or cannot say to each other, then we have to learn to be civil to
      each other.
      The definitions I gave above of civility imply what we each need to do in order to be civil to
      each other. Billante and Saunders describe that being civil requires: 1) Respect for others; 2)
      for those who are not already coerced into sharing social practices with us, civility may be a
      precondition of their willingness to enter and continue in cooperative ventures with us. Third,
      civility supports self-esteem by offering token reminders that we are regarded as worth
      respecting, tolerating, and considering. (266)
      Similarly, Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders define “civility” as “behavior in public which
      demonstrates respect for others and which entails curtailing one’s own immediate self-interest
      when appropriate” (33). A virtue that “aids social cooperation,” and is an “alternative to
      repression.” Without civility there is a danger of repression because
      different individuals will always want and desire different and incompatible things, and their
      unfettered pursuit of their own objectives will inevitably bring them into conflict. The
      question, therefore, is how (as well as how far) individual liberties are to be restricted or
      restrained. In the end, this will either be done by external political agencies of the state, or it
      will be achieved through enlightened self-regulation. (34)
      Calhoun argues that “A principal point of having norms of civility is to regulate discussion of
      controversial subjects so that dialogue among those who disagree will continue rather than
      break down” (269). So according to Calhoun if we do not have an ability to talk with each other,
      there is danger of society breaking down; Billante and Saunders argue that if we want a society
      with “individual liberties” we either have civility—where we respect each other’s opinions no
      matter whether we agree—or we have a repressive government that forces people to live
      together in one country under imposed rule.
      If we don’t want our country to fall apart into chaos, or to become a place where the
      government tells us what we can or cannot say to each other, then we have to learn to be civil to
      each other.
      The definitions I gave above of civility imply what we each need to do in order to be civil to
      each other. Billante and Saunders describe that being civil requires: 1) Respect for others; 2)
      for those who are not already coerced into sharing social practices with us, civility may be a
      precondition of their willingness to enter and continue in cooperative ventures with us. Third,
      civility supports self-esteem by offering token reminders that we are regarded as worth
      respecting, tolerating, and considering. (266)
      Similarly, Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders define “civility” as “behavior in public which
      demonstrates respect for others and which entails curtailing one’s own immediate self-interest
      when appropriate” (33). A virtue that “aids social cooperation,” and is an “alternative to
      repression.” Without civility there is a danger of repression because
      different individuals will always want and desire different and incompatible things, and their
      unfettered pursuit of their own objectives will inevitably bring them into conflict. The
      question, therefore, is how (as well as how far) individual liberties are to be restricted or
      restrained. In the end, this will either be done by external political agencies of the state, or it
      will be achieved through enlightened self-regulation. (34)
      Calhoun argues that “A principal point of having norms of civility is to regulate discussion of
      controversial subjects so that dialogue among those who disagree will continue rather than
      break down” (269).
      So according to Calhoun if we do not have an ability to talk with each other,
      there is danger of society breaking down; Billante and Saunders argue that if we want a society
      with “individual liberties” we either have civility—where we respect each other’s opinions no
      matter whether we agree—or we have a repressive government that forces people to live
      together in one country under imposed rule.
      If we don’t want our country to fall apart into chaos, or to become a place where the
      government tells us what we can or cannot say to each other, then we have to learn to be civil to
      each other.
      The definitions I gave above of civility imply what we each need to do in order to be civil to
      each other.
      Billante and Saunders describe that being civil requires: 1) Respect for others; 2)
      Behaving well in public; 3) Self-regulation. In terms of respect for others, even George
      Washington, when he was 16, described what we should do in order that we get along; as
      Calhoun restates Washington’s words, “The civil person refrains from humming, finger
      drumming, nail biting, bedewing others with spittle, eye rolling, lolling out the tongue, gaping,
      killing fleas and lice in others’ sight, wearing foul clothes, and falling asleep while others speak”
      (257). Instead, we should act toward others in such a way to show that we believe they are
      worthy of respect—even if we disagree. In terms of behaving well in public, this depends on “a
      generalised empathy and sense of obligation which we feel with all who share our society with
      us.” (33). Finally, self-regulation “involves holding back in the pursuit of one’s own immediate
      self-interest—we desist from doing what would be most pleasing to us for the sake of
      harmonious relations with strangers.” (33)
      For the sake of living in one country (or eating a family dinner without an upset stomach),
      these definitions and descriptions show that we need to learn how to respect what other people
      believe, even if we disagree. From what I’ve seen at our table, this means listening and nodding
      rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. In the course of my
      research, though, I came across articles that described a psychological concept that should help
      us be able to do this. This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” are terms that come from psychological
      research. This notion names how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new
      evidence in ways that confirm what [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In their article,
      “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,” Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse also discuss how
      people resist information that does not support what they already believe. A result is that
      “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788). It sounds to me as
      though if people aren’t aware of this that they get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and
      believing information that confirms what they already know.
      Behaving well in public; 3) Self-regulation. In terms of respect for others, even George
      Washington, when he was 16, described what we should do in order that we get along; as
      Calhoun restates Washington’s words, “The civil person refrains from humming, finger
      drumming, nail biting, bedewing others with spittle, eye rolling, lolling out the tongue, gaping,
      killing fleas and lice in others’ sight, wearing foul clothes, and falling asleep while others speak”
      (257). Instead, we should act toward others in such a way to show that we believe they are
      worthy of respect—even if we disagree. In terms of behaving well in public, this depends on “a
      generalised empathy and sense of obligation which we feel with all who share our society with
      us.” (33). Finally, self-regulation “involves holding back in the pursuit of one’s own immediate
      self-interest—we desist from doing what would be most pleasing to us for the sake of
      harmonious relations with strangers.” (33)
      For the sake of living in one country (or eating a family dinner without an upset stomach),
      these definitions and descriptions show that we need to learn how to respect what other people
      believe, even if we disagree. From what I’ve seen at our table, this means listening and nodding
      rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. In the course of my
      research, though, I came across articles that described a psychological concept that should help
      us be able to do this. This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” are terms that come from psychological
      research. This notion names how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new
      evidence in ways that confirm what [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In their article,
      “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,” Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse also discuss how
      people resist information that does not support what they already believe. A result is that
      “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788). It sounds to me as
      though if people aren’t aware of this that they get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and
      believing information that confirms what they already know.
      Behaving well in public; 3) Self-regulation. In terms of respect for others, even George
      Washington, when he was 16, described what we should do in order that we get along; as
      Calhoun restates Washington’s words, “The civil person refrains from humming, finger
      drumming, nail biting, bedewing others with spittle, eye rolling, lolling out the tongue, gaping,
      killing fleas and lice in others’ sight, wearing foul clothes, and falling asleep while others speak”
      (257). Instead, we should act toward others in such a way to show that we believe they are
      worthy of respect—even if we disagree. In terms of behaving well in public, this depends on “a
      generalised empathy and sense of obligation which we feel with all who share our society with
      us.” (33).
      Finally, self-regulation “involves holding back in the pursuit of one’s own immediate
      self-interest—we desist from doing what would be most pleasing to us for the sake of
      harmonious relations with strangers.” (33)
      For the sake of living in one country (or eating a family dinner without an upset stomach),
      these definitions and descriptions show that we need to learn how to respect what other people
      believe, even if we disagree.
      From what I’ve seen at our table, this means listening and nodding
      rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. In the course of my
      research, though, I came across articles that described a psychological concept that should help
      us be able to do this.
      This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” are terms that come from psychological
      research.
      This notion names how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new
      evidence in ways that confirm what [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In their article,
      “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,” Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse also discuss how
      people resist information that does not support what they already believe. A result is that
      “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788). It sounds to me as
      though if people aren’t aware of this that they get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and
      believing information that confirms what they already know.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of healthrelated attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). “Although fair-mindedness and objectivity are desirable
      qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun control, health care reform, and
      affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information processing often does not
      operate in that manner” (6). I found other writers who discuss this, too (see, for example,
      Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning; or Nickerson). Researchers Taber and Lodge, for
      example, claim that, “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it always supports
      one’s priors, one cannot be rationally responsive to the environment; similarly, manipulating
      the information stream to avoid any threat to one’s priors is no more rational than the
      proverbial ostrich” (767).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect. Unless
      we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information on
      any topic, our information will be biased.
      What my research has shown me is that civility is necessary if we are to be able to talk
      together about what matters to us as families and as a country. But civility isn’t enough. Civility
      is about how we think about and act toward others; if we are civil only, we can still think that
      our ideas are all the right ones, meaning we still won’t really be listening. Bringing awareness of
      confirmation bias together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well
      -informed as we think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others
      and really be able to figure out together how to solve our problems.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of healthrelated attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). “Although fair-mindedness and objectivity are desirable
      qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun control, health care reform, and
      affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information processing often does not
      operate in that manner” (6). I found other writers who discuss this, too (see, for example,
      Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning; or Nickerson). Researchers Taber and Lodge, for
      example, claim that, “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it always supports
      one’s priors, one cannot be rationally responsive to the environment; similarly, manipulating
      the information stream to avoid any threat to one’s priors is no more rational than the
      proverbial ostrich” (767).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect. Unless
      we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information on
      any topic, our information will be biased.
      What my research has shown me is that civility is necessary if we are to be able to talk
      together about what matters to us as families and as a country. But civility isn’t enough. Civility
      is about how we think about and act toward others; if we are civil only, we can still think that
      our ideas are all the right ones, meaning we still won’t really be listening. Bringing awareness of
      confirmation bias together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well
      -informed as we think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others
      and really be able to figure out together how to solve our problems.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of healthrelated attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). “Although fair-mindedness and objectivity are desirable
      qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun control, health care reform, and
      affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information processing often does not
      operate in that manner” (6). I found other writers who discuss this, too (see, for example,
      Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning; or Nickerson). Researchers Taber and Lodge, for
      example, claim that, “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it always supports
      one’s priors, one cannot be rationally responsive to the environment; similarly, manipulating
      the information stream to avoid any threat to one’s priors is no more rational than the
      proverbial ostrich” (767).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect.
      Unless
      we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information on
      any topic, our information will be biased.
      What my research has shown me is that civility is necessary if we are to be able to talk
      together about what matters to us as families and as a country.
      But civility isn’t enough. Civility
      is about how we think about and act toward others; if we are civil only, we can still think that
      our ideas are all the right ones, meaning we still won’t really be listening. Bringing awareness of
      confirmation bias together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well
      -informed as we think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others
      and really be able to figure out together how to solve our problems.

      Works Cited

      Balcetis, Emily and David Dunning. “See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91.4 (2006). PsycARTICLES. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
      Calhoun, Cheshire. “The Virtue of Civility.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29.3 (Summer, 2000): 251-275. JSTOR. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
      Edwards, Kari and Edward E. Smith. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71. 1 (1996): 5-24. Westlaw. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
      Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon, 2012. Kindle file.
      Nickerson, Raymond S. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2.2 (1998): 175-220. Web. EBSCOHost.
      Schwind, Christina and Jürgen Buder, Ulrike Cress, Friedrich W. Hesse. “Preference-inconsistent recommendations: An effective approach for reducing confirmation bias and stimulating divergent thinking?” Computers & Education 58 (2012) 787–796. Web. Elsevier. 18 Nov. 2012.
      Strickland, April A., Charles S. Taber, and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law. December, 2011. Web. Westlaw. 18 Nov. 2012.
      Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50.3 (Jul., 2006): 755-769. JSTOR. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
    • Williams 1
      Harley Williams
      Professor Komova
      ENG102
      15 Dec. 2012
      Civility Is Not Enough
      My father can roast a chicken so perfectly is looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the table I picture us having a dinner like those in the old happy family movies my
      granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up screaming
      at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don't know why we keep
      doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered that what happens
      at our table is a sign of something larger. many families have trouble with controversial topics,
      but so do we as a country. From my research I came to the conclusion, for now, that being able
      to talk about controversial topics—which requires being civil to each other—is necessary for
      having a democracy and its freedoms. I also learned from my research, however, that (as I will
      argue)
      civility isn't enough.
       
      In a book on the history of the idea of civility, sociology professor Benet Davetian writes that
      notions of civility were "born at a time when the Western would was overwhelmed by violence
      and in sore need of communal reconstruction and cooperative restraint" (8). Davetian writes
      about civility in its development as a concept in Europe starting approximately 800 years ago.
      He shows how the spread of civility helped societies move away from individuals believing that
      Williams 1
      Harley Williams
      Professor Komova
      ENG102
      15 Dec. 2012
      Civility Is Not Enough
      My father can roast a chicken so perfectly is looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the table I picture us having a dinner like those in the old happy family movies my
      granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up screaming
      at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don't know why we keep
      doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered that what happens
      at our table is a sign of something larger. many families have trouble with controversial topics,
      but so do we as a country. From my research I came to the conclusion, for now, that being able
      to talk about controversial topics—which requires being civil to each other—is necessary for
      having a democracy and its freedoms. I also learned from my research, however, that (as I will
      argue) civility isn't enough.
       
      In a book on the history of the idea of civility, sociology professor Benet Davetian writes that
      notions of civility were "born at a time when the Western would was overwhelmed by violence
      and in sore need of communal reconstruction and cooperative restraint" (8). Davetian writes
      about civility in its development as a concept in Europe starting approximately 800 years ago.
      He shows how the spread of civility helped societies move away from individuals believing that
      Williams 1
      Harley Williams
      Professor Komova
      ENG102
      15 Dec. 2012
      Civility Is Not Enough
      My father can roast a chicken so perfectly is looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the table I picture us having a dinner like those in the old happy family movies my
      granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up screaming
      at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don't know why we keep
      doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered that what happens
      at our table is a sign of something larger. many families have trouble with controversial topics,
      but so do we as a country. From my research I came to the conclusion, for now, that being able
      to talk about controversial topics—which requires being civil to each other—is necessary for
      having a democracy and its freedoms. I also learned from my research, however, that (as I will
      argue)
      civility isn't enough.
       
      In a book on the history of the idea of civility, sociology professor Benet Davetian writes that
      notions of civility were "born at a time when the Western would was overwhelmed by violence
      and in sore need of communal reconstruction and cooperative restraint" (8). Davetian writes
      about civility in its development as a concept in Europe starting approximately 800 years ago.
      He shows how the spread of civility helped societies move away from individuals believing that
      Williams 1
      Harley Williams
      Professor Komova
      ENG102
      15 Dec. 2012
      Civility Is Not Enough
      My father can roast a chicken so perfectly is looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the table I picture us having a dinner like those in the old happy family movies my
      granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up screaming
      at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don't know why we keep
      doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered that what happens
      at our table is a sign of something larger. many families have trouble with controversial topics,
      but so do we as a country. From my research I came to the conclusion, for now, that being able
      to talk about controversial topics—which requires being civil to each other—is necessary for
      having a democracy and its freedoms. I also learned from my research, however, that (as I will
      argue)
      civility isn't enough.
       
      In a book on the history of the idea of civility, sociology professor Benet Davetian writes that
      notions of civility were "born at a time when the Western would was overwhelmed by violence
      and in sore need of communal reconstruction and cooperative restraint" (8). Davetian writes
      about civility in its development as a concept in Europe starting approximately 800 years ago.
      He shows how the spread of civility helped societies move away from individuals believing that
      Williams 1
      Harley Williams
      Professor Komova
      ENG102
      15 Dec. 2012
      Civility Is Not Enough
      My father can roast a chicken so perfectly is looks like a magazine ad. Every Sunday when he
      carries that to the table I picture us having a dinner like those in the old happy family movies my
      granddad watches on TCM. But our dinners always turn out awful. Everyone ends up screaming
      at each other about healthcare or unions. My stomach is in knots. I don't know why we keep
      doing this.
      Are your family dinners like this, too?
      For this paper I researched families and political arguments. I discovered that what happens
      at our table is a sign of something larger. many families have trouble with controversial topics,
      but so do we as a country.
      From my research I came to the conclusion, for now, that being able
      to talk about controversial topics—which requires being civil to each other—is necessary for
      having a democracy and its freedoms. I also learned from my research, however, that (as I will
      argue) civility isn't enough.
       
      In a book on the history of the idea of civility, sociology professor Benet Davetian writes that
      notions of civility were "born at a time when the Western would was overwhelmed by violence
      and in sore need of communal reconstruction and cooperative restraint"
      (8). Davetian writes
      about civility in its development as a concept in Europe starting approximately 800 years ago.
      He shows how the spread of civility helped societies move away from individuals believing that
      Williams 2
      violence should be solve all problems; instead, the rise of belief in civility as a virtue parallels
      the rise of more democratic (and peaceful) forms of government.
      Davetian defines "civility" as "the extent to which citizens of a given culture speak and act in
      ways that demonstrate a caring for the welfare of others as well as the welfare of the culture
      they share in common" (9). I found many other writers who defined civility similarly, with
      slightly different descriptions of the details. Philosopher Chesire Calhoun, for example, writes
      that the “civil citizen exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She
      respects the rights of others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion,
      does not show contempt for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy”
      (256). What all the definitions I read share is the importance of listening to others with respect,
      which means acting toward others’ words and ideas as though you trust them to have good
      reasons for their beliefs and opinions.
      Why does showing such respect to others in discussions about difficult topics—being civil—
      matter in a democracy?
      Historically, democracies shifted political power away from kings and other royalty to
      citizens. Although our country is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy (where
      we would all vote on every single issue that mattered to the country rather than electing
      legislators to represent us), our country still depends on us contributing to political
      deliberations. We need to be informed voters and to let our representatives know where we
      stand on certain issues and why. According to the writers of an section (in the journal Theory
      and Society) on different kinds of public spheres, for such democracies, the “ultimate goal is a public
      sphere in which better ideas prevail over weaker ones because of the strength of these ideas
      rather than the strength of their proponents” (Ferree et. al. 301). Manuel Gómez, the former Vice
      Williams 2
      violence should be solve all problems; instead, the rise of belief in civility as a virtue parallels
      the rise of more democratic (and peaceful) forms of government.
      Davetian defines "civility" as "the extent to which citizens of a given culture speak and act in
      ways that demonstrate a caring for the welfare of others as well as the welfare of the culture
      they share in common" (9). I found many other writers who defined civility similarly, with
      slightly different descriptions of the details. Philosopher Chesire Calhoun, for example, writes
      that the “civil citizen exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She
      respects the rights of others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion,
      does not show contempt for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy”
      (256). What all the definitions I read share is the importance of listening to others with respect,
      which means acting toward others’ words and ideas as though you trust them to have good
      reasons for their beliefs and opinions.
      Why does showing such respect to others in discussions about difficult topics—being civil—
      matter in a democracy?
      Historically, democracies shifted political power away from kings and other royalty to
      citizens. Although our country is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy (where
      we would all vote on every single issue that mattered to the country rather than electing
      legislators to represent us), our country still depends on us contributing to political
      deliberations. We need to be informed voters and to let our representatives know where we
      stand on certain issues and why. According to the writers of an section (in the journal Theory
      and Society) on different kinds of public spheres, for such democracies, the “ultimate goal is a public
      sphere in which better ideas prevail over weaker ones because of the strength of these ideas
      rather than the strength of their proponents” (Ferree et. al. 301). Manuel Gómez, the former Vice
      Williams 2
      violence should be solve all problems; instead, the rise of belief in civility as a virtue parallels
      the rise of more democratic (and peaceful) forms of government.
      Davetian defines "civility" as "the extent to which citizens of a given culture speak and act in
      ways that demonstrate a caring for the welfare of others as well as the welfare of the culture
      they share in common" (9). I found many other writers who defined civility similarly, with
      slightly different descriptions of the details. Philosopher Chesire Calhoun, for example, writes
      that the “civil citizen exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She
      respects the rights of others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion,
      does not show contempt for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy”
      (256). What all the definitions I read share is the importance of listening to others with respect,
      which means acting toward others’ words and ideas as though you trust them to have good
      reasons for their beliefs and opinions.
      Why does showing such respect to others in discussions about difficult topics—being civil—
      matter in a democracy?
      Historically, democracies shifted political power away from kings and other royalty to
      citizens. Although our country is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy (where
      we would all vote on every single issue that mattered to the country rather than electing
      legislators to represent us), our country still depends on us contributing to political
      deliberations. We need to be informed voters and to let our representatives know where we
      stand on certain issues and why. According to the writers of an section (in the journal Theory
      and Society) on different kinds of public spheres, for such democracies, the “ultimate goal is a public
      sphere in which better ideas prevail over weaker ones because of the strength of these ideas
      rather than the strength of their proponents” (Ferree et. al. 301). Manuel Gómez, the former Vice
      Williams 2
      violence should be solve all problems; instead, the rise of belief in civility as a virtue parallels
      the rise of more democratic (and peaceful) forms of government.
      Davetian defines "civility" as "the extent to which citizens of a given culture speak and act in
      ways that demonstrate a caring for the welfare of others as well as the welfare of the culture
      they share in common" (9). I found many other writers who defined civility similarly, with
      slightly different descriptions of the details. Philosopher Chesire Calhoun, for example, writes
      that the “civil citizen exercises tolerance in the face of deep disagreement about the good. She
      respects the rights of others, refrains from violence, intimidation, harassment and coercion,
      does not show contempt for others’ life plans, and has a healthy respect for others’ privacy”
      (256).
      What all the definitions I read share is the importance of listening to others with respect,
      which means acting toward others’ words and ideas as though you trust them to have good
      reasons for their beliefs and opinions.
      Why does showing such respect to others in discussions about difficult topics—being civil—
      matter in a democracy?
      Historically, democracies shifted political power away from kings and other royalty to
      citizens.
      Although our country is a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy (where
      we would all vote on every single issue that mattered to the country rather than electing
      legislators to represent us), our country still depends on us contributing to political
      deliberations. We need to be informed voters and to let our representatives know where we
      stand on certain issues and why. According to the writers of an section (in the journal Theory
      and Society) on different kinds of public spheres, for such democracies, the “ultimate goal is a public
      sphere in which better ideas prevail over weaker ones because of the strength of these ideas
      rather than the strength of their proponents” (Ferree et. al. 301). Manuel Gómez, the former Vice
      Williams 3
      Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of California–Irvine, writes that our First
      Amendment—in which freedom of speech is protected for us—is based on “the concept of
      American democracy as a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ in which ideas compete for acceptance”; it
      depends on “the virtues of competition between, and the open interrogation of, ideas” (13).
      Psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses an analogy to describe why this matters when he compares
      each of us to a neuron: “A neuron by itself isn’t very smart. But if you put neurons together in
      the right way you get a brain; you get an emergent system that is much smarter and more
      flexible than a single neuron.” Together—building upon a wide range of perspectives—we come
      up with the best solutions. This means that everyone needs to be able to participate. By being
      civil, we not only encourage everyone to participate; we ensure that the widest range of ideas
      can be considered and used to make the best decisions.
      Some of my sources pointed out that sometimes civility is inappropriate. Law professor
      Geoffrey R. Stone, for example, writes that
      incivility may be necessary to make a point effectively, to shake complacency, or to rouse
      “the people.” A burning flag, a well-aimed insult, a scream of protest may be just what the
      doctor ordered to stir people to anger and awaken their consciences. As the Supreme Court
      has said, our nation has made a “profound commitment to the principle that debate on
      public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include
      vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”
      As Stone acknowledges, however, “a general presumption against incivility is sensible” because
      incivility “can be counterproductive and seriously destructive of the larger values of the
      community” So while incivility—not showing respect to others in discussion—is sometimes
      warranted in extreme cases, it is civility that is warranted for family dinners and probably most
      Williams 3
      Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of California–Irvine, writes that our First
      Amendment—in which freedom of speech is protected for us—is based on “the concept of
      American democracy as a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ in which ideas compete for acceptance”; it
      depends on “the virtues of competition between, and the open interrogation of, ideas” (13).
      Psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses an analogy to describe why this matters when he compares
      each of us to a neuron: “A neuron by itself isn’t very smart. But if you put neurons together in
      the right way you get a brain; you get an emergent system that is much smarter and more
      flexible than a single neuron.” Together—building upon a wide range of perspectives—we come
      up with the best solutions. This means that everyone needs to be able to participate. By being
      civil, we not only encourage everyone to participate; we ensure that the widest range of ideas
      can be considered and used to make the best decisions.
      Some of my sources pointed out that sometimes civility is inappropriate. Law professor
      Geoffrey R. Stone, for example, writes that
      incivility may be necessary to make a point effectively, to shake complacency, or to rouse
      “the people.” A burning flag, a well-aimed insult, a scream of protest may be just what the
      doctor ordered to stir people to anger and awaken their consciences. As the Supreme Court
      has said, our nation has made a “profound commitment to the principle that debate on
      public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include
      vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”
      As Stone acknowledges, however, “a general presumption against incivility is sensible” because
      incivility “can be counterproductive and seriously destructive of the larger values of the
      community” So while incivility—not showing respect to others in discussion—is sometimes
      warranted in extreme cases, it is civility that is warranted for family dinners and probably most
      Williams 3
      Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of California–Irvine, writes that our First
      Amendment—in which freedom of speech is protected for us—is based on “the concept of
      American democracy as a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ in which ideas compete for acceptance”; it
      depends on “the virtues of competition between, and the open interrogation of, ideas” (13).
      Psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses an analogy to describe why this matters when he compares
      each of us to a neuron: “A neuron by itself isn’t very smart. But if you put neurons together in
      the right way you get a brain; you get an emergent system that is much smarter and more
      flexible than a single neuron.” Together—building upon a wide range of perspectives—we come
      up with the best solutions. This means that everyone needs to be able to participate. By being
      civil, we not only encourage everyone to participate; we ensure that the widest range of ideas
      can be considered and used to make the best decisions.
      Some of my sources pointed out that sometimes civility is inappropriate. Law professor
      Geoffrey R. Stone, for example, writes that
      incivility may be necessary to make a point effectively, to shake complacency, or to rouse
      “the people.” A burning flag, a well-aimed insult, a scream of protest may be just what the
      doctor ordered to stir people to anger and awaken their consciences. As the Supreme Court
      has said, our nation has made a “profound commitment to the principle that debate on
      public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include
      vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”
      As Stone acknowledges, however, “a general presumption against incivility is sensible” because
      incivility “can be counterproductive and seriously destructive of the larger values of the
      community” So while incivility—not showing respect to others in discussion—is sometimes
      warranted in extreme cases, it is civility that is warranted for family dinners and probably most
      Williams 3
      Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of California–Irvine, writes that our First
      Amendment—in which freedom of speech is protected for us—is based on “the concept of
      American democracy as a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ in which ideas compete for acceptance”; it
      depends on “the virtues of competition between, and the open interrogation of, ideas” (13).
      Psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses an analogy to describe why this matters when he compares
      each of us to a neuron: “A neuron by itself isn’t very smart. But if you put neurons together in
      the right way you get a brain; you get an emergent system that is much smarter and more
      flexible than a single neuron.” Together—building upon a wide range of perspectives—we come
      up with the best solutions. This means that everyone needs to be able to participate.
      By being
      civil, we not only encourage everyone to participate; we ensure that the widest range of ideas
      can be considered and used to make the best decisions.
      Some of my sources pointed out that sometimes civility is inappropriate.
      Law professor
      Geoffrey R. Stone, for example, writes that
      incivility may be necessary to make a point effectively, to shake complacency, or to rouse
      “the people.” A burning flag, a well-aimed insult, a scream of protest may be just what the
      doctor ordered to stir people to anger and awaken their consciences. As the Supreme Court
      has said, our nation has made a “profound commitment to the principle that debate on
      public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include
      vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”
      As Stone acknowledges, however, “a general presumption against incivility is sensible” because
      incivility “can be counterproductive and seriously destructive of the larger values of the
      community” So while incivility—not showing respect to others in discussion—is sometimes
      warranted in extreme cases, it is civility that is warranted for family dinners and probably most
      Williams 4
      political discussions. As Chesire Calhoun (the philosopher I quoted earlier when defining
      civility) writes,
      I am inclined to weigh civility heavily in the scales because I find something odd, and oddly
      troubling, about the great confidence one must have in one’s own judgment (and lack of
      confidence in others’) to be willing to be uncivil to others in the name of a higher moral
      calling. (275)
      It is that question of one’s attitude towards one’s own ideas that leads me to question whether
      civility alone is enough as we seek for us all to be able to discuss difficult topics together.
      If the goal of civility is to support democracy and help us come to understand the broadest
      possible range of perspectives on difficult issues so that we can make the best decisions
      together as a country, the definitions and descriptions above show that we need to learn how to
      respect what other people believe, even if we disagree. From what I’ve seen at our family dinner
      table— and in classrooms and on television and the Internet—this means really listening, and
      nodding, rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. But the words I
      quoted above from Calhoun about confidence make me turn to some writing that came up
      almost by accident in my research, when I came across sections that described a psychological
      concept that should help us consider how much confidence we ought to have in our ideas when
      we talk with others. This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” come from psychological research.They name
      how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what
      [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In the section, “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,”
      Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse discuss that people not only seek evidence that confirms what
      they already believe but that they also resist information that goes against what they already
      Williams 4
      political discussions. As Chesire Calhoun (the philosopher I quoted earlier when defining
      civility) writes,
      I am inclined to weigh civility heavily in the scales because I find something odd, and oddly
      troubling, about the great confidence one must have in one’s own judgment (and lack of
      confidence in others’) to be willing to be uncivil to others in the name of a higher moral
      calling. (275)
      It is that question of one’s attitude towards one’s own ideas that leads me to question whether
      civility alone is enough as we seek for us all to be able to discuss difficult topics together.
      If the goal of civility is to support democracy and help us come to understand the broadest
      possible range of perspectives on difficult issues so that we can make the best decisions
      together as a country, the definitions and descriptions above show that we need to learn how to
      respect what other people believe, even if we disagree. From what I’ve seen at our family dinner
      table— and in classrooms and on television and the Internet—this means really listening, and
      nodding, rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. But the words I
      quoted above from Calhoun about confidence make me turn to some writing that came up
      almost by accident in my research, when I came across sections that described a psychological
      concept that should help us consider how much confidence we ought to have in our ideas when
      we talk with others. This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” come from psychological research.They name
      how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what
      [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In the section, “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,”
      Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse discuss that people not only seek evidence that confirms what
      they already believe but that they also resist information that goes against what they already
      Williams 4
      political discussions. As Chesire Calhoun (the philosopher I quoted earlier when defining
      civility) writes,
      I am inclined to weigh civility heavily in the scales because I find something odd, and oddly
      troubling, about the great confidence one must have in one’s own judgment (and lack of
      confidence in others’) to be willing to be uncivil to others in the name of a higher moral
      calling. (275)
      It is that question of one’s attitude towards one’s own ideas that leads me to question whether
      civility alone is enough as we seek for us all to be able to discuss difficult topics together.
      If the goal of civility is to support democracy and help us come to understand the broadest
      possible range of perspectives on difficult issues so that we can make the best decisions
      together as a country, the definitions and descriptions above show that we need to learn how to
      respect what other people believe, even if we disagree.
      From what I’ve seen at our family dinner
      table— and in classrooms and on television and the Internet—this means really listening, and
      nodding, rather than telling others they don’t know what they’re talking about. But the words I
      quoted above from Calhoun about confidence make me turn to some writing that came up
      almost by accident in my research, when I came across sections that described a psychological
      concept that should help us consider how much confidence we ought to have in our ideas when
      we talk with others.
      This concept is called “confirmation bias” or “selective exposure.”
      “Confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” come from psychological research.
      They name
      how people have a “tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what
      [they] already think” (Haidt 78). In the section, “Preference-inconsistent recommendations,”
      Schwind, Buder, Cress, and Hesse discuss that people not only seek evidence that confirms what
      they already believe but that they also resist information that goes against what they already
      Williams 5
      believe. A result is that “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788).
      It sounds to me as though people who aren’t alert to consciously seeking a broad range of
      information will get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and believing information that
      confirms what they already know.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of health-related attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). For these writers, the result is that “Although fair-mindedness
      and objectivity are desirable qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun
      control, health care reform, and affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information
      processing often does not operate in that manner” (6). In a different section, two of the writers I
      just cited also go on to note that “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it
      always supports [what one already believes], one cannot be rationally responsive to the
      environment; similarly, manipulating the information stream to avoid any threat to [what one
      already believes] is no more rational than the proverbial ostrich” (Tabor and Lodge 767). A
      quick library database search will turn up many similar sections describing experiments that
      demonstrate our confirmation bias and how this bias usually prevents us from truly having
      good reasons to believe what we do. (See, for example, Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning;
      [who offer evidence that confirmation bias even affects what we are capable of seeing]; or
      Nickerson).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect.
      Unless we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information
      Williams 5
      believe. A result is that “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788).
      It sounds to me as though people who aren’t alert to consciously seeking a broad range of
      information will get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and believing information that
      confirms what they already know.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of health-related attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). For these writers, the result is that “Although fair-mindedness
      and objectivity are desirable qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun
      control, health care reform, and affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information
      processing often does not operate in that manner” (6). In a different section, two of the writers I
      just cited also go on to note that “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it
      always supports [what one already believes], one cannot be rationally responsive to the
      environment; similarly, manipulating the information stream to avoid any threat to [what one
      already believes] is no more rational than the proverbial ostrich” (Tabor and Lodge 767). A
      quick library database search will turn up many similar sections describing experiments that
      demonstrate our confirmation bias and how this bias usually prevents us from truly having
      good reasons to believe what we do. (See, for example, Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning
      [who offer evidence that confirmation bias even affects what we are capable of seeing]; or
      Nickerson).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect.
      Unless we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information
      Williams 5
      believe. A result is that “confirmation bias is detrimental to unbiased opinion formation” (788).
      It sounds to me as though people who aren’t alert to consciously seeking a broad range of
      information will get caught in a vicious circle, only looking for and believing information that
      confirms what they already know.
      Writers claim that cognitive bias affects all we believe, not just politics. For example, three
      researchers in behavioral and political sciences from Stony Brook University claim that
      “cognitive biases influence a wide range of health-related attitudes, from broad, national
      decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking”
      (Strickland, Taber, and Lodge 1). For these writers, the result is that “Although fair-mindedness
      and objectivity are desirable qualities of thought, particularly for weighty issues such as gun
      control, health care reform, and affirmative action, evidence has shown that human information
      processing often does not operate in that manner” (6). In a different section, two of the writers I
      just cited also go on to note that “In the extreme, if one distorts new information so that it
      always supports [what one already believes], one cannot be rationally responsive to the
      environment; similarly, manipulating the information stream to avoid any threat to [what one
      already believes] is no more rational than the proverbial ostrich” (Tabor and Lodge 767). A
      quick library database search will turn up many similar sections describing experiments that
      demonstrate our confirmation bias and how this bias usually prevents us from truly having
      good reasons to believe what we do. (See, for example, Edwards and Smith; Balcetis & Dunning;
      [who offer evidence that confirmation bias even affects what we are capable of seeing]; or
      Nickerson).
      What “confirmation bias” and “selective exposure” show us is that none of us is perfect.
      Unless we have been very careful and purposefully sought out the broadest possible information
      Williams 6
      on any topic (and paid it serious attention), our information will always be biased, narrow, and
      self-perpetuating.
      For the sake of dinner table conversations—and for all other conversations that involve
      difficult topics—we do need to be civil. We do need to show others that we respect their
      opinions and beliefs, and we need to listen well. But if that is all we do then we can still believe
      that our own ideas are better than anyone else’s and we won’t achieve what civility is meant to
      achieve: better discussion about controversial matters. Bringing awareness of confirmation bias
      together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well-informed as we
      think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others and really be able
      to figure out together how to solve our problems.
      Williams 6
      on any topic (and paid it serious attention), our information will always be biased, narrow, and
      self-perpetuating.
      For the sake of dinner table conversations—and for all other conversations that involve
      difficult topics—we do need to be civil. We do need to show others that we respect their
      opinions and beliefs, and we need to listen well. But if that is all we do then we can still believe
      that our own ideas are better than anyone else’s and we won’t achieve what civility is meant to
      achieve: better discussion about controversial matters. Bringing awareness of confirmation bias
      together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well-informed as we
      think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others and really be able
      to figure out together how to solve our problems.
      Williams 6
      on any topic (and paid it serious attention), our information will always be biased, narrow, and
      self-perpetuating.
      For the sake of dinner table conversations—and for all other conversations that involve
      difficult topics—we do need to be civil. We do need to show others that we respect their
      opinions and beliefs, and we need to listen well. But if that is all we do then we can still believe
      that our own ideas are better than anyone else’s and we won’t achieve what civility is meant to
      achieve: better discussion about controversial matters.
      Bringing awareness of confirmation bias
      together with civility helps us be aware that our own ideas are rarely as well-informed as we
      think. If we are aware of that, then maybe we will listen more closely to others and really be able
      to figure out together how to solve our problems.
      Williams 7

      Works Cited

      Balcetis, Emily and David Dunning. “See What You Want to See: Motivational Influences on Visual Perception.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91.4 (2006). PsycARTICLES. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
      Calhoun, Cheshire. “The Virtue of Civility.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29.3 (Summer, 2000): 251-75. JSTOR. Web. 14 Nov. 2012.
      Davetian, Benet. Civility: A Cultural History. Toronto: Toronto UP, 2009. Print.
      Edwards, Kari and Edward E. Smith. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71. 1 (1996): 5-24. Westlaw. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
      Ferree, Myra, William A. Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht. “Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern Democracies.” Theory and Society 31 (2002): 289–324. JSTOR. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
      Gómez, Manuel N. “Imagining the Future: Cultivating Civility in a Field of Discontent.” Change (March/April 2008). 11–17. Print.
      Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon, 2012. Kindle file.
      Nickerson, Raymond S. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2.2 (1998): 175-220. EBSCOHost. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
      Schwind, Christina and Jürgen Buder, Ulrike Cress, Friedrich W. Hesse. “Preference-inconsistent recommendations: An effective approach for reducing confirmation bias and stimulating divergent thinking?” Computers & Education 58 (2012) 787–96. Elsevier. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
      Williams 8
      Stone, Geoffrey R. “Civility and Dissent During Wartime.” Human Rights 33.1 (2006): n. pag. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
      Strickland, April A., Charles S. Taber, and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law. December, 2011. Westlaw. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
      Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50.3 (Jul., 2006): 755-69. JSTOR. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.