Summary of Assignment: Report to Judge Moga
Be sure to read the Writ of Certiorari in M2 U1-5 for background information on this Supreme Court case.
This module is designed in a problem-based learning style as a way to allow you opportunities to investigate issues related to women and aging in a more autonomous way. There are five units in the module, each with a specific topic related to women and aging. The units are:
2. Sexuality & Body Image
3. Gender Inequalities
For the purpose of this module, you are asked to put yourself in the role of a Law Clerk working for a Supreme Court Judge named Judge Moga. You have been asked by the judge to research how women have been treated in the past and provide him with a report of documented information and a suggestion of how he should vote on the controversial issue of the use of MEMs (see M2 U1-5). It is your job during these five units to go back in time and hear what women in the past have to say about the various topics listed above. It is suggested that you take notes and pay attention to who is speaking as a way to provide citations to the information you include in your 3-4 page final report to the judge. In each unit, you are asked to read, discuss, and document your thoughts, information collected, and any outside information you locate. If you have questions, feel free to contact your instructor.
It is important for you to collect evidence and come to your own conclusion. I have given many A’s to papers that did not advocate for giving MEMs to women, as long as they could back up their argument with appropriate facts and reasonable rationale. “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.”
This assignment should help you think about our current policy to reform health care. We cannot provide premier health care to everyone; we just can’t afford it. How do we decide what services to provide to whom? What are the historical, ethical, and moral bases for our decisions?
A suggested outline might be:
1. Introduction – summarizing the background of the situation and your suggestion for how the judge should vote
2. Body of the paper (2-3 pages) – integrating what you have learned from Module 2 that supports your suggestion to the judge
3. Summary – reviewing your suggestion and the rationale behind your suggestion
Please note that however you present your outline, you must have headings for each section and/or subsection. Some of you may recall seeing comments on Paper #1 that you need to include headers, but it was meant to say headings. Before you start writing your introductory section, you need to write “Introduction” and continue with your work on the next line. Simply identify the introduction, body, and summary along with any other headers you may wish to include. This is a requirement. Please be sure you may close attention to the grading rubric below.
Since most of your references will be from the online unit, which is outside the scope of APA, don’t worry too much about it, as long as your references include the module, unit, and interviewee (when using an interviewee). The reference list only needs one entry for the online units.
The Calasanti and Mellor/Rehr texts should be referenced using APA format.
In text example: