To get started, note down the overall group assignment below, and then read he rest of this prompt to try to do this "group" exercise on your own, answering all the relevant intermediate questions in your notes, and doing your best to come to your own overall conclusion (yes/no/dunno) about this topic.
Then, in your notes, write out your best answer to your overall group assignment, saying either that you can't figure it out (and what you do think), or that Pollack did or didn't prove his claim against Keenan. Thus, your answer can take one of three forms:
AFTER you've done that, go to your assigned discussion and read all the existing posts.
First, without reading any other comments, paste in your prewritten analysis as a new post in that thread.
Second, then read all the other posts in the thread (you may have to come back later to do this), making notes as you go whenever an analysis differs from yours. Note down whenever someone disagrees with something you said, or mentions a detail you didn't include, or a logical implication you didn't notice, or leaves out something you think is an important detail, or makes what you see as a logical error. You don't have to note down dozens of details, but you should try to note down at least the most significant four, or five points, or at least what you can find.
THEN, decide if you're going to stand or fold. If you decide that your original analysis (which still gets 5 points) was wrong, you then add a comment to your original post in which you explain how and why you changed your mind. Or, if you still think you were right, make a comment on someone else's post politely ask a pertinent question, or otherwise make a comment that you think gently nudges the other poster in the correct direction.
Okay, here's your starting analysis question:
Your Overall Group Assignment: Determine through cooperative work and group discussion whether or not Pollak proves that Keenan lied when she said Ryan repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals. |
You should treat this as if it were a mathematics problem. There is a right answer, and you have to figure it out before you start writing down your answer. If a teacher asks you "what is two-plus-two" and you feel very strongly that the answer is "seven," you would still be wrong to give "seven" as your answer to "what is two-plus-two." Similarly, there is a right answer to the question posed above, this answer can be determined by examining Keenan's writing, Pollak's writing and any other relevant evidence. If you base your answer on what you feel to be true instead of the evidence, you will very probably get it wrong and get zero points for this assignment.
In Nancy Keenan's NARAL press release, she writes:
"Rep. Ryan's anti-choice record includes: Repeatedly voting to deny women in the military, who defend our freedom overseas, the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals."
In his response to Keenan's press release, Joel Pollak says.
"She continues with a torrent of lies, such as that Ryan’s record includes “Repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals.” Again, what Keenan leaves out is critical: no U.S. military hospitals provide abortions to begin with."
Your task is to evaluate Pollak's claim against Keenan. What does independent research tell us about the veracity of Keenan's claim about Ryan? What does logical analysis tell us about the cogency of Pollak's reasoning against this claim? Is Pollak correct when he describes Keenan's statement as a lie? What does your analysis of this small dispute say about Pollak's diligence, intelligence and integrity? Do you think that Pollak has done the kind of careful research one should do before one accuses another person of lying? If we assume that Pollak is completely honest here, and is saying exactly what he actually thinks, what does his claim here about Keenan say about his ability to think logically? Finally, if we don't assume he is completely honest, what does his behavior in this one small matter say about his personal integrity?
Here are some questions you should think about before you come to an overall decision. You can pick and choose which issues you investigate based on what you think you need to understand in order to answer the questions at the end of this page. Remember, though, that you are required to come to a correct conclusion about this issue, so skipping questions that would help you actually understand this issue is not a good idea. Many of the questions in the following sections come with links to websites that might help you answer them:
The first thing to do is make Keenan's actual statement as clear as possible. The crux of this issue is whether or not Keenan's statement that Ryan's record includes "repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals" is a lie. Pollak says this is a lie because "no U.S. military hospitals provide abortions to begin with." Now, in order for this fact to make a liar out of Keenan, it would have to be the case that she had said that some U.S. military hospitals did provide abortions at some time. But did she?
In some essays, students have represented Keenan as saying that servicemen currently receive free abortions at military hospitals, that they want the right to pay for these presently free abortions, and that Ryan voted to deny them the right to pay for abortions that they were currently receiving for free. But does Keenan's statement say anything about the present situation at military hospitals? If you think there's anything in Keenan's article that says that U.S. military hospitals currently provide abortions, you will need to explictly quote that specific sentence in your paper. If you think that Keenan is saying that Ryan voted to deny women the right to pay for something they already got of free, I want to ask you if it makes sense to think that a fiscally conservative Catholic to vote in favor of free abortions, or that the pro-choice Keenan would object to him so voting?
Your present task is to look at Keenan's statement that Ryan was "repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals" and figure out whether or not that statement, in its plain, common meaning says, implies, or even suggests that some or all U.S. military hospitals do or did at some time provide abortions.
I think it might be important to remember that Keenan used the word "deny." She did not use "withdraw," or "take away," or "remove," or "curtail," or "stop," or "terminate." She used the word deny. Thus evaluating Pollak's accusation might crucially depend on knowing exactly what this word "deny" means in common English usage. Here are some links to entries on this word in various online dictionaries, which you can use if you like:
Wiktionary Merriam-Webster Dictionary.com The Free Dictionary Oxford Dictionaries Webster-Dictionary.org Longmans Die Net
(I should mention that Keenan is not saying that Ryan denied any factual claim. She's not saying that Ryan denied that women are in the military or that he denied that service women defend our freedom overseas. She's saying that he voted to deny servicewomen a particular legal right. This is "deny" in the sense of "refuse" or "withhold," and not in the sense of "contradict" or "gainsay.")
It might help to consider an analogous hypothetical example: Suppose that, while there has never been a bill that was originally written to allow muskrats to nest in post offices, but that several Senators have offered amendments to other bills that would change those bills to allow muskrats to nest in post offices, and that Senator Beaverman has always voted against those amendments. (Some senator creates a bill, some other senator says "let's change that bill so it allows muskrats to nest in post offices, and Beaverman votes against this.) Would it then be true or false to say that Senator Beaverman has always voted to deny muskrats the right to nest in post offices? Would saying that Senator Beaverman has always voted to deny muskrats the right to nest in post offices imply that muskrats had ever had this right?
So, did Keenan, say, imply or even suggest that U.S. military hospitals ever provided abortions? (If you think she did, explain just how the words she used can be reasonably construed to mean this.) Remember, things that happen in your head as you read are not necessarily the same as things the writer is actually saying. The question is not "what did you think" but "what is the plain English meaning of the actual text?"
Finally, I would like to suggest that, if no U.S. military hospitals currently provide abortions, then women in the military are indeed denied the right to use their own private funds for abortion care at military hospitals. If there's no abortions to be had at all, then no-one can use her own funds to obtain one, can she?
If you haven't worked out the precise actual meaning of Keenan's statement, don't bother attempting anything else. If you don't know what Keenan actually said, you won't be able to figure out if she lied or not.
If you know what Keenan actually said, you can compare it to Ryan's actual voting record.
Here are some questions with helpful links that might prove useful in determining Ryan's actual voting record. These links go directly to official records of congressional actions, proposals and votes. It's the best information I could find on the internet.
So now there are two question you should answer:
1. Based on these links, is it true or false that in the years 1999 - 2006, Democrats in congress several times tried to introduce measures to allow women in the military the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals?
2. Based on these links, is it true or false that in those years, Paul Ryan again and again and again voted against those measures?
If you don't answer these two questions, you're not doing the assignment.
If you've answered all the previous questions, you could move on to the logic issue. If you haven't answered the previous questions, you should go back and answer them. Seriously, there's no point in going on unless you do the most basic tasks you've been assigned to do.
Pollak says that the fact that U.S. military hospitals do not provide abortions proves that Keenan was lying when she said that Ryan had repeatedly voted to deny servicewomen the right to obtain abortions in U.S. military hospitals. Does this work logically?
A hypothetical analogy might help. Suppose Ruritania has been a monarchy for all of it's recorded history. Suppose that Mutt says "Rupert von Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the throne of Ruritania," and that subsequently, Jeff says "Mutt is lying when he says Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the Ruritanian throne. We can see this from the fact that the Rassendyll family has always held the throne, and that no Hentzau has ever sat on the Ruritanian throne." And suppose that you investigate, and find that the Rassendylls have indeed held the throne through all history until the present day. Would that fact (all by itself) imply that Mutt was lying when he said that Hentzau had many times attempted the throne? (If you think it does, I'd like you to explain your answer in your paper.)
Jeff's argument has the same logical form as Pollak's, so if Pollak's argument works, so does Jeff's, and vice versa. If, on the other hand, Jeff's argument doesn't work, then Pollak's argument fails as well.
What do you think? If you decide that fact that U.S. military hospitals do not (yet) provide abortions proves that Keenan was lying when she said that Ryan had repeatedly voted to deny servicewomen the right to obtain abortions in U.S. military hospitals, explain how it does so in your paper.
If you've done everything up to this point, you can go on to do some other stuff.
If (and this is a very big IF), if you decided that Nancy Keenan's statement about Paul Ryan is not true, you must also decide if Pollak has proved that Keenan was lying, rather than just mistaken. To prove that someone lies you must prove that they knew that what they said was untrue, or at least that the truth was so available, or so easy to find out that a person would have to act with reckless disregard for appropriate standards of evidence to make that statement. What, if anything, does Pollak specifically and explicitly say in his article that supports his claim that Nancy Keenan was lying, rather than just making a mistake, when she said Ryan repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their own funds for abortions at military hospitals?
Now, if you did all the research and determined that Nancy Keenan was not wrong, she could not possibly be lying so you wouldn't do this bit.
Now, on the other hand If (and this is also a very big IF), if you decided that Nancy Keenan's statement about Paul Ryan is true, you must also decide if Pollak was lying, rather than just mistaken. To prove that someone lies you must prove that they knew that what they said was untrue, or at least that the truth was so available, or so easy to find out that a person would have to act with reckless disregard for appropriate standards of evidence to make that statement. If Nancy Keenan has been telling the truth, do you also have reason to think that Pollak acted with reckless disregard for the truth?
It should go without saying that there is absolutely no point in doing this "Mistakes and Lies" section if you haven't done the basic task of figuring out if what Keenan said was right or wrong. If you haven't done that, go back and do that.
If someone is going to set himself up as a political commentator, his audience has a right to expect that he do the necessary research to have his facts straight and that he think carefully and logically about those facts before he starts writing. Based on your analysis so far, what does this one particular incident say about the abilities of each of these two writers?
The best way to look at such questions as this is to separate it from how you feel about the particular issues being defended, and ask yourself what you would think about a person from the opposite side who reasoned this way.
Suppose you came across a prolific conservative writer who uniformly writes to the same standard as Keenan follows in this particular exchange. This conservative's factual claims are always researched exactly as well (or as badly) as the factual claim of Keenan's we discuss here. What would be your opinion of this conservative writer's ability to do research and make logically coherent statements?
Suppose you come across a prolific liberal writer who uniformly
writes to the same standard as Pollak follows in this particular
exchange. This conservative's arguments are always exactly as well (or as
badly), thought out as as the argument of Pollak's we discuss here. What
would be your opinion of this liberal writer's ability to do
research and make logically coherent statements?
Here's what I want you
to do:
If you have figured out the answer for yourself, here's how you should write your paper:
|
The final thing to think about is integrity. And I'd like to base this final discussion on one last hypothetical analogy, a final return to Ruritania. Suppose again that Ruritania has been a monarchy for all of it's recorded history. And again suppose that Mutt says "Rupert von Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the throne of Ruritania," and that subsequently, Jeff says "Mutt is lying when he says Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the Ruritanian throne." And again suppose that you investigate, but this time you investigate the historical records of Rupert von Hentzau's actions.
I want you to consider two alternative possibilities for the results of your investigation:
Under alternative one, it turns out that there is no actual record of Hentzau ever making an attempt on the Ruritanian throne, and that the records of his actions are clear, complete and comprehensive, so that, if he had made any such attempt, it would have been recorded. Suppose also that it turns out that these records are easily accessible, so that anyone who was willing to do the research would have easily found out that there was no factual support for Mutt's claim. Under these circumstances, what would you think about Mutt's moral character in making the claim he did about Hentzau?
Under alternative two, it turns out that unimpeachable records exist showing that Hentzau has repeatedly made unsuccessful attempts to become king of Ruritania. And suppose also that Jeff could easily access these records. If this was the case, how would you judge Jeff's honesty when he said that Mutt was lying about Hentzau frequently trying for the throne?
I also want you to consider the relative moral gravity of the two claims that we are discussing here.
As I see it, Keenan claims that Ryan repeatedly acted according to his own values. She claims that he cast a series of votes in congress that his prolife supporters would have wanted and expected him to cast. While a certain proportion of the American public would see these anti-abortion votes as a bad thing, another, perhaps larger proportion of the American public would see them as courageously doing the right thing. Thus, when Keenan makes this claim, she is accusing Ryan of doing something that her supporters would oppose but which Ryan's supporters would applaud. Thus, in my view, Keenan is not accusing Ryan of anything that would be universally condemned, she is merely claiming that he has done something that members of her organization would very much oppose. She is making a claim that, if it is believed, will merely convince people that Ryan is very much prolife, and people will tend to support or oppose him according to their own beliefs about the abortion issue. They will not think him dishonest or unprincipled merely because he is reported to act according to his own expressed values.
Pollak, on the other hand, here accuses Keenan of lying. Lying is universally condemned. If people believe Pollak's claim about Keenan, they will see her as a dishonest person, and her credibility will suffer, not only with her opponants, but also with the general public and her own supporters. Thus, in my view, Pollak's accusation is a much graver charge than Keenan's. If Keenan is wrong about Ryan, general belief in this falsehood will not significantly harm Ryan, but if Pollak is wrong about Keenan, general belief in this falsehood will cause significant and possibly irreparable harm to Keenan. Thus it is a much more serious matter if Pollak is wrong than if Keenan is wrong.
Am I right about this? Is Keenan's claim about Ryan something Americans could believe without thinking that Ryan has a defective moral character? Is Pollak's claim about Keenan something Americans could not believe without also thinking that Keenan does have a defective moral character? Or have I missed or misunderstood something here?
Because an accusation of lying is such a serious matter, such accusations should only be made when there is conclusive evidence that the statement is not true and there is conclusive evidence that the accused has no excuse for not knowing the truth. Otherwise, it would be really irresponsible, and perhaps even dishonest to make such an accusation.
And if the statement being called a "lie" is actually supported by all the available evidence, then it would be stupid, insane or dishonest to call it a lie.
After you have come to your best supported conclusions about the accuracy and rationality of Keenan's and Pollak's claims here, you might want to think about the moral character of people who make such claims. Does your investigation here show Keenan or Pollak in a bad moral light? If it does, who is the bad guy here and why?
After you have done all the research you think you need to do, considered whatever of the above questions you think useful, and done all the thinking you have time to do, you can start actually writing your paper. Although you can organize your paper in any way that works to effectively fulfil the basic task given at the top of this page, I think the easiest way to proceed is to answer the following questions in order, explaining, elaborating and supporting your answers with evidence as you go. (The early questions are the most important, while the last few are basically optional.)
Again, I want o emphasize that you must explain, elaborate and support your answers as you go on. Don't just say "yes" or "no." Say exactly what the true situation is, explain why you think your answer is correct, and support your answer with evidence from the texts.
If Pollak turns out to be wrong, and you decide to do questions 8 and 9, the way to think about it is this: Suppose you write an article for the school paper in which every factual claim you make is absolutely backed up by solid evidence. You don't have room to cite sources in the article, but everything you say is true. Now suppose that another writer, a Mister Saul Bollock, writes an article attacking you in exactly the way that Pollak attacked Keenan. You know that you did not lie, and that everything you said was true, so what would you think about Mr. Bollock and his attack on your integrity? If it turns out that what Keenan said was true, what should we think about Joel Pollak? (Again, don't bother with this if Pollak isn't wrong.)
I want to emphasize that the results of this series of exercises, whatever they turn out to be, will say very little about Keenan or Pollak overall, and will say absolutely nothing about conservative and liberal thinkers in general. Each of these articles is just one paper written by just one writer, and that this dispute was not chosen randomly by your instructor. If Keenan's piece is terrible, in could actually be the one bad piece in an otherwise stellar career. If Pollak's article is horribly mistaken, it could be his one bad piece in an otherwise brilliant series of writings. Even if we were to infer that Keenan or Pollak were a great person, or a vile person, they could be the one hero on a crowd of villains, or the one villain in a sea of wonderful people. Whatever we conclude about these two articles and these two people will mean virtually nothing in the great scheme of things.
Finally remember that I am not asking you to preserve any previously expressed or privately held opinions. You can change your mind about anything at any time. If you previously thought that the evidence supported one side, but now see that the evidence supports the other side, you are supposed to go with what you see the evidence saying right now. Your most important cognitive faculty is your ability to change your mind. If you think you have to stick with some previously expressed thesis, you are not exercising free will, and you are not thinking for yourself.
