2021-2022 – Semester 1

Legal English

The United States

“[…] Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free […]”
Emma Lazarus – “The New Colossus” – 1883
2
 Table of Contents

COURSE DESCRIPTION ______________________________________________________________4

A. METHODOLOGY __________________________________________________________________5

ORAL PRESENTATION __________________________________________________________________________ 5

ESSAY WRITING _____________________________________________________________________________ 9

B. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ________________________________________________________11

USEFUL PHRASES AND SENTENCES ________________________________________________________________ 11

MISTAKES YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE ANYMORE. _________________________________________________________ 12
PUNCTUATION _____________________________________________________________________________ 13
PLAGIARISM _______________________________________________________________________________ 14

UNIT 1 – THE MEDIA _______________________________________________________________15

GRAMMAR: LINK WORDS ______________________________________________________________________ 21

UNIT 2 – POLITICAL PARTIES ________________________________________________________23

GRAMMAR: THE ARTICLES: A, AN, THE, ∅ ___________________________________________________________ 29

UNIT 3 – THE 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ____________________________________________31

GRAMMAR: PRESENT TENSES ____________________________________________________________________ 36

UNIT 4 - RELIGION ________________________________________________________________38

GRAMMAR: PRESENT PERFECT & PRETERITE __________________________________________________________ 43

UNIT 5 – IMMIGRATION ____________________________________________________________45

GRAMMAR: CONDITIONALS _____________________________________________________________________ 50

UNIT 6 - MANIFEST DESTINY AND FOREIGN POLICY ______________________________________52

GRAMMAR: QUANTIFIERS ______________________________________________________________________ 58

UNIT 7: CIVIL RIGHTS______________________________________________________________61

GRAMMAR: THE PASSIVE VOICE _________________________________________________________________ 70

UNIT 8 - GUNS ____________________________________________________________________72

GRAMMAR: TENSES __________________________________________________________________________ 80

UNIT 9 – THE DEATH PENALTY _______________________________________________________82

GRAMMAR: ASKING QUESTIONS/REPORTED SPEECH _____________________________________________________ 90

SKILLS __________________________________________________________________________94

HOW TO WRITE AN EMAIL ______________________________________________________________________ 94

NUMBERS ________________________________________________________________________________ 96
READING THE NEWS__________________________________________________________________________ 97
DEBATING _______________________________________________________________________________ 100
PHONETICS ______________________________________________________________________________ 104

3
 Course description
This course is based on weekly classes. Each class lasts 90 minutes.

At the end of this semester, you should be able to:

→ make a 3 to 5-minute oral presentation with a few notes on a topical subject
→ understand authentic newspaper articles and radio reports on contemporary political, social, economic
and legal issues.
→ write a formal and well-structured essay of 250 words (+/-10%).

The materials provided herein can be used in several ways to develop and strengthen these skills. They
will help you gradually improve your use of English and further your knowledge of political and legal
vocabulary. In the second and third years, course content will become more and more specialized.

During the first semester we will study documents relating to the United States and the second semester
will be devoted to the United Kingdom.

For Grammar, your teacher will use L’anglais de A à Z, Michael Swan et Françoise Houdart, Hatier, 2011
or English Grammar in Use, Raymond Murphy, Cambridge University Press. You can also use your own
grammar book. Just pay attention to the grammar point of the unit for an effective preparation of the
exercises from your brochure.

The brochure must be brought to each class.

CONTINUAL ASSESSMENT AND EXAMS

Your mark for each semester is independent and it is made up of one grade for the in-class exam and
another for continual assessment. The final mark is out of 10. Exams are given in week 11 or 12 and last
1.5 hours. Continual assessment is based on your spoken English, in-class participation, homework,
progress and punctuality.

ATTENDANCE is mandatory for every class. PUNCTUALITY is also required. You may not be admitted to
class if you are more than 5 minutes late. Continual assessment accounts for 50% of your final grade.
Therefore, your attendance and punctuality will have a significant influence on it. It goes without
saying that cell phones must be turned off.

In-class exams last the whole class (90 minutes). You will be asked to use the skills and
vocabulary you have learnt throughout the preceding semester.

BUILDING YOUR SKILLS

Learning a language can be fun but it also requires substantial work on a regular basis. This does not
happen uniquely in the classroom. Students who progress most are those who seek every occasion to
use English inside or outside of the classroom.

In addition to your weekly tutorial, we strongly recommend you have as much contact as possible with
the English language. Read books, newspapers and magazines in English. Watch TV in English, surf the
Web and go to the University’s library. Listen to music with English lyrics. Try to understand them as
well. Watch the original version of films and series. Converse with native speakers of English. In short,
the more practice you have in reading, writing, listening and speaking, the stronger your skills will
become. It will become easier and more natural for you to speak English. You will also feel comfortable
speaking English. Your teachers can recommend appropriate material for your level — don’t hesitate to
ask them.

4
A. Methodology
Oral presentation
1. POWERPOINT (PP) PRESENTATIONS

Why is it an important skill to master?

- PP is a tool that should complement the oral presentation. It is not content.

- The aim here is help the students develop the skills to design an effective PP to aid their oral
presentations, as there is a very high chance that they will be asked to present with a PP in future
interviews/jobs.

- Students should be able to identify and design useful content for the PP so they can present successfully.
Learning to present with PP will increase student employability as it is the worldʼs most popular
presentational software.

- Used well, PP can improve the clarity of presentations and help to illustrate a message and engage the
audience.

Common mistakes in PP presentations:

1. Too much text, even when using bullet points;
when an audience is given text, they will try and
read it. If they are reading then they will not be
listening, but they also will not be able to fully
concentrate on reading; they will be distracted
by the presenter talking.
2. Poorly designed slides; if the PP slides use
badly contrasted colours and are poorly
formatted and inconsistent, then they will serve
no purpose other than to distract the audience
from the presentation.
3. Staring at the screen; PP slides should be used
to supplement a presentation, not serve as a
prompt. One of the most annoying and
unprofessional habits when giving a presentation
using PP is staring at the screen, reading content
directly to the audience.
4. Standing in front of the screen; this blocks the
audience from seeing the PP content, makes the
audience feel uneasy, and turns the presenter a
strange shade of blue from the projector/
computer light!
5. Being overly/unnecessarily creative; creativity
is a good thing, but making text boxes swirl and
dance just because PP has the function to do that
is not creative. It just distracts the audience.
6. Panicking when something does not work;
ideally the presenter should always arrive early
to check that the technology works, but this is
not always possible. Technology fails often, and
panicking do not help anyone. Always have a
back-up plan.

How to put together a good presentation:

Step 1: Designing PowerPoint slides

a. Color
- Ensure that all of your slides have the same or similar background images and color schemes.
- Prepare slides that use a bold color contrast, e.g., black or deep blue text on a cream background (black
and white can be too glaring for the audience)
- Avoid using red or green for text or highlighting, as it can be difficult to read.

b. Text
- Avoid using too much text. A useful guideline is the six-by-six rule (slides should have no more than
six-bullet points and each bullet point should be no more than six words long).
- Create bullet points which are clear summaries of key points.
- Do not mix up your fonts and font sizes.

5
- Ensure that your text is at least 24pt otherwise it may be difficult to read on screen
- Use bold for a clear and simple form of emphasis and headings
- Set clear hierarchies for type size to help your audience distinguish between headings, main text and
other types of text.

Step 2: Making the most of graphics and animations

- Choose an appropriate quality for scanned images.

- Make sure graphics are relevant to your text and not just decorative.
- Consider using graphics to replace text where you think an image would be easier to understand.
- Ensure that the images that you use are simple and clear enough to be easily read at a distance.
- Make sure that any animation you use serves a clear purpose (e.g., to introduce a new piece of
information at an appropriate point).

Step 3: When preparing to present, ask yourself:

- How large is the room that I am going to be presenting in? Will people be able to see my slides from
the back?
- Does any of my audience have any special requirements?
- Have I rehearsed my presentation to check that all of my slides work in the way they are supposed to?
- Does my presentation fit into the time that I have been given?
- Have I checked that the necessary equipment (laptop, data projector, speakers for sound) is functioning?
- Do I have an alternative plan in case the technology fails?

Step 4: Presenting with PowerPoint

- Treat each slide as a mini-presentation where you make a point to introduce the idea, give the detail
and then conclude that slide with an explanation of how the point fits in with the rest of your presentation.
- Direct your audience’s attention to the slides when they contain information that is key to getting your
message across.
- Give your audience time to read and understand material on your slides.
- Don’t just read out the text on the slides, they should be a summary or a supplement to the content of
your spoken presentation.

2. YOUR PRESENTATION

Your presentation will consist in:

- A presentation based on a provocative or controversial question or statement for you to

agree/disagree with, comment upon or discuss.
Examples: “The Church of England has no future” or “Affirmative action: a necessary evil?”

OR

- A critical analysis of one or several cartoons

Pictures (in motion or not) – cartoons, paintings, or photographs - read like texts. They result from an
author’s choices. Therefore, every detail is meaningful. You should first describe it as precisely as possible
then interpret it.

-How to describe a picture: storytelling

Pictures read from top to bottom and from left to right. Therefore, pay attention to the FRAME:
- what there is – or not – in the center, which defines the TOPIC
- the left- and right-hand side of the picture, which helps convey movement
- the upper and lower part of the picture, which define the background and the foreground
- lighting, which follows the FOCUS of the picture
- the situation of communication: when was the picture released, by whom, to what readership?

Always ask yourself WHY the picture is as it is meant to be.

6
-Toolbox:
Vocabulary:
In the background/foreground To convey: to suggest
On the right/left (hand side) To mean/to be meant to
In the center/middle To raise the issue of
To conjure up: to evoke To refer to

Grammar:
v Modals
CAN: What can you see/guess/imagine/infer?
MAY: refers to the before and/or after of the picture; we may ask/think…, this may result from…

v Be+ing: pictures come into being when there are people to look at them; using the simple
present would make the picture timeless

v Present perfect: refers to the before of the picture

v Comparatives: pictures are often built on strong oppositions
v Syntax: What we can see here/What we have here is…., which means that…

HOW LONG SHOULD YOUR PRESENTATION BE? 3 to 5 minutes

DOS AND DON’TS

Do …
• Prepare your presentation thoroughly. Write your own text with the information you have
gathered. Use different sources.
• Structure your work: clearly define what is in your introduction (what you are going to talk about),
the body of your talk (your topic, your ideas, facts and arguments) and your conclusion.
• Use formal language.
• Use short, simple sentences to express your ideas clearly.
• Pause from time to time and don’t speak too quickly. This allows the listener to understand your
ideas.
• Speak clearly and at the right volume.
• Practice your presentation. If possible, record yourself and listen to your presentation. If you can’t
record yourself, ask a friend to listen to you.
• Make your opinion very clear. Use varied expressions to give your opinion.
• Look at the people who are listening to you.
• Familiarize yourself with your slideshow (only pictures and a few key sentences)
• For the cartoon analysis, evaluate political cartoons for their meaning, message, and
persuasiveness. Description is a means, not an end. Determine whether you agree or disagree
with the author’s message.

• Conclude your talk with a question to your classmates in order to trigger a short
discussion.

Do not…
• Write out the whole presentation and learn every word by heart.
• Write out the whole presentation and read it aloud.
• Use very informal language or slang (ex: “I’m gonna tell you”, “and all that stuff”)
• Only look at your note card.
• Just copy and regurgitate a Wikipedia page.

For your note card: You are just allowed the plan of your presentation, a few names and
dates.

7
 3. AN EXCELLENT ORAL PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION
The introduction presents the overall topic and draws the audience into the presentation with
compelling questions or by relating to the audience's interests or goals.

CONTENT
The content is written clearly and concisely with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information.

TEXT
The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. Text is appropriate
in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability
of text.

Linking words and phrases

Sequence Result Emphasis

• First / firstly, second / • So • Undoubtedly

secondly, third / thirdly • As a result • Indeed
etc. • As a consequence • Obviously
• Next, last, finally (of) • Generally
• In addition, moreover • Therefore • Admittedly
• Further / furthermore • Thus • In fact
• Another • Consequently • Particularly / in
• Also • Hence particular
• In conclusion • Due to • Especially
• To summarize • Clearly
• Importantly

Addition Reason Example

• And • For • For example

• In addition, / additionally • Because • For instance
• Furthermore • Since • That is (i.e.)
• Also • As • Such as
• Too • Because of • Including
• As well as • Namely

Contrast Comparison

• However • Similarly
• Nevertheless • Likewise
• Nonetheless • Also
• Still • Like
• Although / even though • Just as
• Though • Just like
• But • Similar to
• Yet • Same as
• Despite / in spite of • Compare
• In contrast (to) / in • compare(d) to / with
comparison • Not only...but also
• While
• Whereas
• On the other hand
• On the contrary

8
 Essay Writing

You are meant to write an “argument essay”: a provocative or controversial statement is put
forward for you to agree or disagree with in 250 words (+/- 10%).

Example: “The monarchy is finished. It was finished a while ago, but they're still making the corpses
dance.” Sue Townsend, English writer and humorist (1946-2014)
Do you agree with Mrs. Townsend’s statement?

Choose a position and defend it logically.

First, as you know that you will have to develop your ideas, you do have to:

1) Have a good command of the vocabulary you are supposed to use (ex: if you know that your topic
will be related to political parties for example, do check whether you could express yourself as
thoroughly and precisely as possible without using too simple words or without repeating yourself)

2) Get yourself a little corpus of quotations, ideas, some definitions and key facts. Opposing views need
not be addressed directly in your essay but might be inferred indirectly in the choice of arguments
you use to back up your views.

ESSAY STRUCTURE:

1) Introduction: An introduction provides a clear question your essay will answer (as
rephrased by yourself if needed), sets out the scope of the discussion and/or presents your
thesis, outlines the structure of the essay, and suggests the answer the essay will put forward
in the conclusion.

Try to respect these three steps:

a) Contextualization: Point to the relevance of the quotation or question. Define the key-term
and/or explain the nature of the area you are asked to write on.
b) The question: show to what extend the subject is a challenging or problematic one by providing
a clear question your essay will answer.
c) Your stance/point of view: it must be clear right from the start.

2) The body of the essay:

Demonstrate your viewpoint in two or three paragraphs or sections. You can give titles to your
sections.
Each paragraph must correspond to a key idea or argument. A paragraph usually begins with a topic
sentence which is an introduction to the idea developed in the paragraph. If the question requires a
personal view (‘What do you think about’, ‘Give your opinion on’, ‘How far do you agree with’, etc.),
make sure to give a clear opinion. As long as it supported by relevant facts, examples, quotations or
arguments, you will be given credit for it.
IMPORTANT: Avoid plagiarism. Citing is one of the effective ways to avoid plagiarism. Do give all the
references needed. When quoting a source, use the quote exactly the way it appears. No one wants to
be misquoted. (Cf. page on plagiarism).

3) Conclusion: evaluate the quotation/statement, giving a clear answer to the question set in
the introduction. Summarize your thesis and open to a new point.

Language
How shall I express my opinion?
First, do not hesitate to use the pronoun “I”. Anglo-Saxons do not mind a clear standpoint, quite the
reverse! You must try to use impersonal structures and the passive so that your essay won’t turn into an

9
embarrassing celebration of your ego! The use of the conditional tends to mitigate too strong an assertion:
“I would tend to agree with…” / You can also use the passive for generalizations: “It is commonly
acknowledged that…”
DO NOT USE THE ROYAL WE! “In conclusion, we think that…”

Try not to use contractions. “the president doesn’t does not want to…”
Remember to use linking words to
- add information (in addition, moreover, furthermore...)
- contrast ideas (however, on the contrary, conversely, nevertheless...)
- go more into details (indeed, in fact, a case in point is...)
- draw a conclusion or deduce something (therefore, thus, to conclude...).

Keep some time when you have finished your essay to check spelling, grammar (passive voice v.
active voice, verb structures, negative and question structures, choice of tenses (simple present, present
perfect, simple past, past perfect, conditionals, future), pronouns, agreements etc.

Poor language Richer language

Adjectives: GOOD - Beneficial, positive, salutary, appropriate
BIG - Major, substantial, essential, critical,
seminal, first-rate, considerable,
tremendous
- Powerful, important, prominent,
influential, high-powered, leading, pre-
eminent, of high standing, outstanding, well
BAD known, eminent, distinguished, principal,
foremost, noteworthy
- Adverse, detrimental, negative
Verbs: TO BE -To constitute, exemplify, typify…

WHAT DOES AN ESSAY LOOK LIKE?

This template is just meant to give you a clearer picture of what an essay can look like but
remember that what matters is how clear you are in presenting and supporting your
arguments.

Subject: “Can the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of a country be justified?”
(Adapted from L’anglais aux concours scientifiques, Ellipse, 2013, p. 87)

(Introduction - contextualization]
The UN charter of 1945 underlines the “inadmissibility of intervention” in states’ domestic affairs.
[question and standpoint/ problématique et positionnement] In practice, although sound in
theory1, this principle has often been ignored. So, perhaps the UN should at least try and limit the
legitimacy of intervention to the humanitarian field?

TOPIC SENTENCE: Intervention can be justified only when it serves to ensure that victims of armed
conflicts receive assistance. Even if it is the lesser of two evils, the necessity of armed intervention should
override sovereignty, to enforce humanitarian rules in extreme circumstances like ongoing genocides.
The international community then has a « responsibility to protect » civilian populations.

1
Principle which is theoretically fair but that is invalidated by real urgent situations.

10
TOPIC SENTENCE: Consequently, the main issue is not so much whether vigorous action at times needs
to be taken as who should take it. World leaders sometimes pay lip-service to altruistic purposes when
in fact they are merely following their own interests, potentially at the expense of international stability.
An example of this was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, by the US/GB led coalition, which was not sanctioned
by the UN, with the consequences still seen today.

(Conclusion)
The decision to carry out an intervention in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state should be an
exceptional and multilateral decision aimed at providing vital help for civilian populations. In order to
avoid a situation in which powerful nations use intervention as a pretext to install new regimes
sympathetic to their own agendas, the prevailing role of the UN should constantly be upheld to pursue
the ideal of multipolarity.

250 words

B. What you need to know

Useful phrases and sentences

To introduce a topic
• It is often said/asserted/claimed that..., but...
• It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that...
• It is hard to open a newspaper nowadays without reading that...
• First of all, it is important to try to understand ….
• By way of introduction, let me …
• Before going into the issue of criminal law, I wish to summarize how …
• We commonly think of ...as but, in fact...
To evoke issues or concepts
• The concept of controlling guns isn't new...
• The question of whether … is important has long occupied critics
• …. is a question that has been much debated.
To present a thesis
• First of all, let us consider (the advantages of...)
• Let us begin with (the social aspects of this question)
• The first thing that needs to be said is that...
• What should be established at the very outset is that …
To expose a problem/ To back up a theory or an argument
• The issue at stake here is ….
• An argument in support of (this approach) is that …
• In support of this theory, Mr X argues that …
• This is the most telling argument in favour of...
To give an example
• for example, for instance …
• Just consider, by way of illustration, the difference between...
To present an opposite viewpoint
• It is claimed, however, that...
• This idea does not stand up to (historical scrutiny)
• The trouble with the idea that … is not that it is wrong, but rather that it is uninformative
• The difficulty with this view is that...
• Banning guns is entirely unjustified in my opinion.
To summarize
• I have demonstrated that.../ shown that
• To sum up, we may conclude that...
• To round off this essay/analysis...
• This, of course, leads to the logical conclusion we can reach, which is...

11
LINKING WORDS
To give examples: for instance, for example, namely, a case in point is, such as, etc.
To express a goal: to, in order to, so as to, etc.
To express a cause: because of, on account of, since, this is the reason for, (this is the reason why), owing to,
thanks to, due to, etc.
To express a consequence: so that, that is why, therefore, thus, accordingly, consequently, as a consequence,
as a result, hence, etc.
To express a condition: if, so long as, in case, supposing, provided that, etc.
To add an element: in addition to, besides, furthermore, moreover, what is more, added to this, on top of that
(/this), as well as, etc.
To express a contrast or opposition: however, nevertheless, nonetheless, yet, still, conversely, in contrast to,
on the contrary, unlike, whereas (within a compound sentence), while (within a compound sentence), etc.
To express restriction: although, though, even though/if, no matter what, whatever, no matter how, unless,
despite, in spite of, etc.

Mistakes you should not make anymore

The following are the main mistakes made frequently by French-speaking students of English. In
order not to be penalized when making your presentation or when writing your essay, you should focus
on the proper words and structures below. Decide not to make these mistakes anymore!

All sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. Use capital letters
PUNCTUATION And systematically for names of countries, adjectives of nationality, names of languages, days of
the week, months of the year, official titles, disciplines and all proper nouns.
CAPITAL LETTERS
Ex: The Republicans and the Democrats but the Republican Party and the Democratic Party,
Congress, the White House ...
a/an depending on the pronounced vowel/consonant; the only for a determined situation,
Articles (the demography of Texas), NOTHING if general; no article with names of most countries
(Except for the US, the UK).
Adjectives INVARIABLE and therefore they can NEVER be in plural: important problems, civil rights,
Native tribes...
Determiner - Noun
Use this with a singular noun; use these with the plural.
Agreement

Who / Which /
WHO used for people / WHICH for objects and animals /The period when it happened (and
When not WHERE)

more for long adjectives (more significant) -er for short adjectives (taller); less with
Comparison uncountable nouns / fewer with countable nouns + than
-the superlative: the most important/the fastest thing to do (la plupart des gens : Most
people), Texas is one of the largest states in the US ( NOT of).
Subject / Verb
NEVER forget the “s” for the third person singular: He thinks. The president has.
Agreement

Contractions In formal writing generally do NOT contract the auxiliaries, verbs or negations: He does not
know, I have left.
Modals After a modal ALWAYS put the infinitive form WITHOUT “to”: You must remember this.

Prep + Verb-Ing After most prepositions use ING form: instead of/before going... TO is always followed by BV:
so as to go
To / For Do not confuse: to become (=in order to) and for becoming (=because of). «Pour +
noun»=For Paul/ «Pour + verb»=To pass my exam.
There + Be This expression is not invariable (unlike “il y a”): There are many people. There is little food.
There are two words in English for “depuis”: for (an amount of time) and since (a starting
For / Since point) need a PRESENT PERFECT (have + pp) not a present: I have been waiting for two
hours. I have been waiting since two o’clock.
As / Like LIKE + noun (he could speak like any famous star)/ AS + clause (please do as I say) =
comparison; AS + noun = identity (As an impersonator)
Tom's dog / the children's toys / my parents' house / James's hat
Possession (‘S) It is used for distances and durations: a minute's silence / a ten days' training / Last week’s
decision

12
 Distinguish between a Democratic value (adj + noun) and the Democrats’ values are ... (cas
possessif)
Barbarisms,
Economics, an economic problem/ Politics/the government’s policy/ a political problem
Improper Uses America = the United States

Do not separate the verb and its complement or invert the verb and the subject. Keep the
Sentence Structure structure simple: S+V+Ct. Direct speech: Why is Texas a battleground state? ≠ Indirect
speech: We may wonder why Texas is a battleground state.

Punctuation

There is no space between punctuation and the last letter preceding it in English, e.g. ‘Attention !’ in
French would be written ‘Attention!’ in English. This applies to question marks (?), commas (,), colons
(:), semi-colons (;), and ellipses (…) as well. Note: there is a space immediately following a colon and
semi-colon.

Commas serve many purposes: they are used to indicate a pause when speaking, to list things, to
separate multiple adjectives, and to craft a complex sentence. A comma cannot simply be placed in the
middle of two complete sentences to connect them. Commas are also employed in numbers (e.g., '1,920'
in English, but '1.920' in French - decimal points are likewise reversed) and dates (e.g., 'July 17, 1993').
The placement of a comma can radically change the meaning of a sentence, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yuL6PcgSgM

Colons have many uses, but the most important for our purposes are: to introduce a list, to give a
definition, and for emphasis. They are often used when the second of two independent clauses explains
the first. They are also used when giving the time, e.g., ’11:45’.

Semi-colons are used to combine two independent but related clauses (e.g., ‘The candidates have
arrived; each has their own talking points.’) in place of a coordinating conjunction (e.g. 'and', 'but', etc.).
It can thus be said that the semi-colon lies between a comma and a period in terms of its power. Semi-
colons are also used for the sake of clarity in lists when commas serve a different purpose than simply
separating the listed items (e.g., 'I saw the President, who was seated; the Vice President, who was
standing; and several top generals.').

Hyphens are used in compound nouns (e.g., 'Italian-American') and compound adjectives (e.g. 'hard-
working'), but their usage is declining. The placement of a hyphen can change the meaning of a sentence,
e.g., ‘two-hundred-year-old houses’ refers to houses (in general) that were built two hundred years ago;
‘two hundred-year-old houses’ refers to two different houses that were built a century ago; ‘two hundred
year-old houses’ refers to two hundred houses that were built a year ago.

Apostrophes are used in contractions to replace the omitted letters as well as in the genitive (possessive).
Note that the placement of the apostrophe can alter its meaning, e.g., 'my friend’s house' (la maison de
mon ami) ≠ 'my friends’ house' (la maison de mes amis).

For quotes, use “ ” or ‘ ’ rather than the French-style « ».

A sentence entirely within parentheses should include the period within the parentheses.

For abbreviations there is a difference between American and British English. In the former, ‘doctor’ is
written as ‘Dr.’, whereas in the latter it is written as ‘Dr’. The same applies to ‘Mr.’, ‘Ms.’, etc. Either
system is fine, but you should be consistent in your usage. ‘US’ and U.S.’ are used interchangeably, as
with ‘UK’.

13
 Plagiarism

A definition
1. The action or practice of plagiarizing; the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as
one’s own, of the ideas or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.)
of another.
2. A purloined idea, design, passage, or work.
From the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Volume XI. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Plagiarism (adapted from the University of Sussex website, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=386)

As the aforementioned definition explains, plagiarism is the act of presenting another person’s
work as if it were your own. This can even happen accidentally if you have not referenced your work
properly. If you have used a quote or idea from a source without referencing, it could look like you are
trying to pretend you came up with the work yourself.
Self-plagiarism: plagiarism can also happen if you use your old essays when writing a new one,
and don’t reference them properly. If you are using your previous work when writing an assignment, you
should reference it with the same level of care you would any other source. Otherwise, it will look like
you are trying to present old work as something new.
Academic misconduct can also occur if you ask someone else to write an assignment for you, or
pay for an essay online. This is known as personation.
Plagiarism is part of academic misconduct. If suspected of academic misconduct, students will be
referred to the “section disciplinaire du conseil académique”, and the consequences can be tough. You
will find more information here: https://www.u-paris2.fr/fr/universite/linstitution/organisation/conseils-
et-commissions/section-disciplinaire
How to avoid committing plagiarism
(adapted from the University of Sussex website, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=386)
- Leave plenty of time! Never start your assignment at the last minutes, you will end up tired
and displeased with your work.
- Reference your notes. When you are researching your topic, make sure you take down full
details of your sources as you go along. If you're quoting verbatim (using a direct quote, word for
word) or using diagrams, make a note of the page numbers or the website too.
- Use your own words. This will help you make sure you understood what you just read / learnt.
- Reference as you go. Do not forget to include the references as you go along. This will avoid
last minute panic, when you realize that you lost some of the references.
- Avoid essay-writing services. Teachers are interested in what you have to say.
- Check your references. Make sure you use quotation marks when you use quotes. Make sure
any long quotes are indented (= starting further from the margin than the rest of the text) and
have a citation. Double-check your reference and your biography.

Going further
You can go to the following web page to take a quiz on plagiarism and make sure you understand what
it is:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub/?id=377

14
 Unit 1 – The Media
Facts

Although the news media of the United States is not technically a part of the political system, its role and influence
are undeniable, both in informing the citizenry and serving as a watchdog. As such, it is sometimes referred to as
the fourth estate (a continuation of the notion of the three states of the ancien régime). A more recent concept is
the fifth estate, i.e., non-traditional sources of information: alternative journalism, bloggers, vloggers, and social
media. The rise of the internet, originally and optimistically seen as a way to democratize information, has led to an
increase in the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation, and fake news, most notoriously during the two
political shocks of 2016, namely the election of Donald Trump and the United Kingdom European Union membership
referendum (more commonly known as Brexit).

A brief history of media in the US:

The 20th century was a period of rapid and disruptive technological growth, often leading to new means of
transmitting and consuming information. Despite these revolutions and other advances since, older forms of media
have managed to co-exist rather than be fully eclipsed. Radio, for example, was initially seen as a threat to
newspapers. A notable use of radio was President Franklin Roosevelt’s series of “fireside chats,” in which he spoke
directly to the American people and thus without the filter of the news media. In these broadcasts he connected with
his constituents, informing them on his policies and reassuring them during the uncertain times of the Great
Depression and the Second World War, thus cementing radio as a means of personal and immediate communication.
Following the 1987 repeal of the “fairness doctrine,” radio stations were no longer required to present two sides to
every issue and thus political talk radio was born. Conservative political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh
dominated this field, drastically shifting the traditional “neutral” presentation of the news and politics and opening
the way to hyper-partisan media. On the right, mainstream media (MSM) is often a conservative byword for
biased coverage and is frequently criticized by conservatives as being too liberal (in the American sense of the
word, i.e., left-wing).

With the arrival of television, radio as a format was largely replaced in the spheres of news and entertainment,
forcing it to adopt the music format that still exists to this day. More recently, traditional radio has also been
challenged by satellite and Internet radio that target specific demographics, often of a political nature. Many major
television networks started off in radio, including the “Big Three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC) that would dominate US
television for more than half a century until the appearance of viable rival networks and the spread of cable television
in the 1980s and 90s. While television remains the number one news source for most Americans today, the Internet
is rapidly catching up with each succeeding generation (roughly 84% of US homes have a computer and 73% have
broadband internet whereas over 96% of homes have a television).

Since the advent of the Internet, newspaper readership has steadily declined and as a result many papers have
shuttered. Ironically, Donald Trump, who frequently uses Twitter to attack what he calls the “failing” New York Times
and Washington Post, amongst other publications, has ushered in a sort of renaissance of the newspaper industry,
creating the first positive growth for the sector in years, though the scope is generally limited to the major papers.
Likewise, magazine readership has also sharply declined since the arrival of the Internet, though, as with
newspapers, some titles have recently seen a surge in sales thanks to the particularly chaotic political climate of the
past four years. Print media, having survived the arrival of broadcast media such as radio and television, is now
in direct competition with digital media, which uses electronic devices for its diffusion and consumption. This has
led many papers and magazines to publish some or all of their content online for free, while others have instituted
paywalls of various types. For those that provide free access to their content, revenue comes from advertising.

Today’s news is constantly accessible, be it via the internet or the 24-hour news cycle, leading to an increase in
competition for resources (viewers and advertisers) and thus a push to increase the speed at which news is presented
as well as its entertainment value. This has had several effects: For example, it has led to a polarization of society
in which various media outlets attempt to speak to a target audience with very specific political ideas, creating echo
chambers and competing narratives for reality (and thus widening the gap between left and right). Additionally,
the drive to attract viewers, combined with the fact that programming has 24 hours to fill, has led to lower quality
content, sensationalism, and infotainment and a general decline in journalistic standards.

Note: ‘media’ is the plural of the word ‘medium’, but due to the common usage of the word in the singular, it can
today be treated as either a singular or a plural noun, i.e., ‘the media is’ and ‘the media are’ are both perfectly
acceptable.

Questions:
1. How has the evolution of media aided in the polarization of the US?
2. Is the 24-hour news cycle a good thing?

15
Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “Average audience placement of each news outlet based on party and
ideology”, Pew Research Center, 04/07/20

Please review the graph below, and answer the following questions:

Questions:
1. Are you familiar with any of the media shown in the chart? Do you consume any of it?
2. Does the chart appear balanced?
3. What types of media dominate each side?

Text 2: “Trump's executive order targeting protections for social media

platforms should be resisted”, Ben Sperry, The Hill, 28/5/20

President Trump’s proposed executive order on “Preventing Online Censorship” is aimed at protecting the “bedrock”
and “sacred” right to free speech on online platforms, which are the “21st-century equivalent of the public square.”
It misses the mark and instead misconstrues the First Amendment and the free speech rights it guarantees. The
First Amendment’s protection of speech is not a promise that private entities will permit the use of their property to
host or promote anyone’s speech. It is a guarantee that the government may not compel speech, which actually
provides a right to editorial discretion to online platforms.

For instance, in a Supreme Court case named Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Court found that a shopping mall was not
required to allow the distribution of handbills on its grounds and that individuals do not have a blanket First
Amendment speech right applicable on private property. In reaching its holding, the Court distinguished private
actors, like online platforms, that act in a purely private capacity, from company towns which, in essence, erect a
full municipal enterprise on their private property and become a de facto government.

16
That’s where the executive order really gets the Constitution wrong. Online platforms like Facebook, Google, and
Twitter are much more akin to shopping malls than they are to company towns in this important sense: moderation
of platforms is private action, not government action. Users of social media services want to distribute the online
version of handbills in the form of posts, videos and tweets. The online platforms are private property, and as soon
as users act outside of the terms of service, they are trespassers or uninvited guests and are subject to expulsion.

Online platforms are not exercising governmental functions delegated to them by the government, nor are they
performing such a full spectrum of municipal powers as to resemble a de facto government. Further, online platforms
do not lose their private character because they are big enterprises open to the public. In fact, they are even less
public than malls because one usually needs to create a profile to use all of an online platform’s functionality.

The case cited in the executive order, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, did not overrule Lloyd and find the First
Amendment directly applies to private spaces open to the public. There, the California Constitution gave broader
free speech rights in certain private spaces open to the public than the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court
found that while the First Amendment does not demand private property owners open their property to the public
for speech, a state constitution may be interpreted to allow leafletting in shopping malls, and this would not
necessarily implicate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against takings. Nothing about Pruneyard is applicable to
President Trump’s proposed executive order. Moreover, insofar as online platforms engage in “editorial control and
judgment”, they can’t be compelled to publish speech with which they disagree. This is an actual “bedrock” tenet of
the First Amendment, and Section 230 does nothing to change it.

Consider a recent example of Google and Facebook removing posts that contain information that conflicts with official
World Health Organization guidance on the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the First Amendment, this is a classic
example of editorial control and judgment very much like what newspapers do. And the Supreme Court has been
clear that — even where newspapers have market power and the ability to write editorials which were “unfair” to a
candidate or an issue, the government cannot interfere with the right to editorial discretion by compelling
newspapers to publish replies.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter have both First Amendment and property rights over their platforms. This includes
the right to moderate content on news feeds, search results, and timelines. In the case of Facebook, this means
they can add fact-checks to or remove posts they believe are based upon misinformation, remove posts promoting
causes they disagree with, and reduce the reach of groups producing what they think is misinformation. Similarly,
Google has the right to scrub what they believe is misinformation from search results. Twitter as well can do what
it believes is necessary to promote good information and weed out the bad, including fact-checking the president.
Whether they are correct in their judgment or should take this role upon themselves is a separate question. The
First Amendment guarantees their right to do so. The government should not be in the business of fighting culture
wars against private companies. Even if online platforms engage in favoritism or bias, a better way of dealing with
the issue would be for concerned users to adopt a competitor service. President Trump’s executive order calling for
regulation of online platforms because he disagrees with how they use their First Amendment rights should be
resisted.

Questions:
1. What is President Trump's claim and what is the author's response?
2. Explain the Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner.
3. Should the government ever intervene in regard to content posted on social media that does not break the
law?

Text 3: “Media trust is at an all-time low among US conservatives. Liberals are

a different story”, Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis, Antonis Kalogeropoulous, Richard Fletcher,
New Statesman, 6/25/19
According to new survey data, the gap between liberal and conservative American attitudes towards the news
industry has never been wider.
Since the election of Donald Trump, the news media has been at the forefront of the political discussion in the United
States. This is reflected in what people in the US think about the news media. Using data from the Digital News
Report, an annual online representative survey conducted by YouGov for the Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism at the University of Oxford, we can examine differences in their attitudes towards news.

The trust divide between liberal (self-identifying as left-wing) and conservative (self-identifying as right-wing)
Americans has grown sharply since 2016. Donald Trump’s hostile campaign against the news media built on a small
trust gap between liberal and conservative Americans that already existed in 2015. Back then, 35 per cent of
Americans who self-identify as left-wing said that they trust most news most of the time, compared to 25 per cent
of those on the right.
But since then, trust among those on the left has risen 18 points, while trust in news among right-wing Americans
has decreased from the already low point of 25 per cent to just 9 per cent.

17
This means that if liberal America was a separate country, it would have one of the highest trust scores in the world.
Among the 38 countries included in the same survey, it would rank alongside the Netherlands – a country with high
trust in politics and other institutions. On the other hand, if conservative America were a separate country, it would
have by far the least widespread trust – even lower than South Korea or Greece, two countries with traditional
scepticism towards media institutions. When it comes to trust in the news media, the US stands alone in its level of
political polarisation.

Apart from broader trust in news, the divergence between left- and right-wing individuals in the US is further evident
in their evaluations of the news media. Liberal Americans are more likely to agree that the news media does a good
job in monitoring powerful people, picking relevant subjects, using the right tone, keeping them up to date, and
helping them understand the news.
For some of these attributes, like helping people understand the news, the difference is very large – around 40
points.
Apart from the differences in how they think about the news media, liberals and conservatives show differences in
how they use news. The figures show that liberals are much more likely to rely on online sources for their news
compared to conservative Americans. On the other hand, conservatives are much more likely to prefer TV.
This does not mean that TV news is causing low trust among conservative Americans. It may be, for example, that
these differences are more to do with age, as younger people in the US are more likely to hold liberal views and to
access news online.

Overall, these findings suggest that three years after the election of Donald Trump, the gap between liberal and
conservative attitudes towards news is growing larger. Interestingly, conservatives who are more sceptical about
news are more likely to rely on traditional TV for their news, and liberals who are more and more positive about it
are relying primarily on online news sources.
This divergence is further partly explaining why some of the most successful digital subscriptions online have been
for outlets with primarily liberal audiences.

Questions:
1. What differences between right and left are discussed in the article?
2. Why could this trend be dangerous?
3. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Text 4: “Fox puts all-caps disclaimer over Trump’s speech as he claims election
was ‘rigged’”, Louise Hall, Independent, 7/12/21
Fox News was spotted running a disclaimer over Donald Trump’s speech to counter his baseless claims of voter fraud
at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech over the weekend. During the headlining speech on
Sunday, the former president lashed out at US voting systems and repeated his baseless claims of election fraud.

“We were doing so well until the rigged election came along,” Mr Trump said.

False election fraud claims persisted as a running theme across the entire conference. In response to the claims,
Fox News was seen running a disclaimer on screen. “The voting system companies have denied the various
allegations made by President Trump and his counsel regarding the 2020 election,” the graphic read. Panels at the
event included “Detecting Threats to Election Integrity: How to Collect Evidence of Fraud” and “Spare the Fraud,
Spoil the Child: The Future of American Elections.” CPAC attendees voted their biggest priorities as “voter ID and
election integrity”.
Mr Trump has continued to push false claims of voter fraud since he lost the 2020 election, the misinformation
culminating in an attempt to overturn the electoral certification on 6 January. According to CNN’s Oliver Darcy, the
disclaimer message ran for about 40 seconds on the screen while the former president was speaking.

“Fox News is so well aware that the voting fraud allegations are nonsense that they ran a disclaimer during Trump’s
speech so that they can’t get sued for spreading misinformation,” one user said in response. “When Fox News runs
a disclaimer banner, you KNOW the person talking has FLAMING pants!”, another commented. One Twitter
user observed: “Of course, nothing about all of the courts that have rejected dozens of lawsuits that claimed there
was election fraud. That would be asking too much of Fox.” Some users criticised the broadcaster for not giving a
strong enough regarding the claims. “This is not strong enough language from FOX and they know it,” a user posted.
The broadcaster has previously found itself in hot water over its broadcasts in support of the former president’s
allegations that the election was “rigged”. They were forced in December to air a series of packages debunking
baseless claims against Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, both makers of voting machines. Both companies
have filed legal action against the broadcaster seeking millions in damages. Fox News moved to dismiss the lawsuits
which they call “baseless”.

18
“FOX News Media is proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American
journalism, and will vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court,” they previously said in a statement. In
another statement the broadcaster called Smartmatic’s lawsuit “meritless” and argued that the First Amendment
protects their “reporting and commenting on competing allegations in a hotly contested and actively litigated
election.” Following around 50 lawsuits filed in several swing states by Mr Trump’s team the Department of Justice
said in December that they had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the wake of the election.

Questions:
1. Who has been sued, by whom, and why?
2. Does Fox have a moral or legal obligation to run this disclaimer?
3. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Listening Comprehension

Video 1: Ted Koppel Tells Bill O’Reilly He’s Ruined Journalism, 1:30
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMtNM3sDLA
Questions:
1. What do Bill O’Reilly and Ted Koppel represent?
2. How did Bill O’Reilly change the ‘television landscape’?
3. Should the news be entertaining?

Video 2: What Is Sinclair Broadcast Group?, 3:41

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxtkvG1JnPk
Questions:
1. What are the criticisms of Sinclair?
2. What is Sinclair’s purported goal?
3. What has Sinclair branded this campaign?

Video 3: Sinclair’s Soldiers in Trump’s War on Media, 1:38

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
Questions:
1. What is Deadspin’s goal in creating this mashup? Is it effective?
2. Should what Sinclair is doing be illegal? Why or why not?
3. Is this a danger for American democracy?

Cartoons

Cartoon 1: Adam
Zyglis, The Buffalo
News, 02/17/17

19
Cartoon 2: Cox and Forkum, coxandforkum.com, 02/15/05

Cartoon 3: Matt Wuerker, politico.com, 12/01/16

20
Grammar: Link Words
Put the following link words into appropriate sentences below: even though, besides, contrary to,
however, despite, instead of, nevertheless, unless, whereas, therefore.

1. The editor wants to embrace the future ______________________ the past.

2. The newspaper has been losing money, ____________________ it has managed to survive by finding new
investors.

3. The whistleblower decided to reveal the information _____________ the fact that he risked going to prison.

4. Blogs are becoming increasingly popular ________________ they are mainly based on opinion rather than facts
and research.

5. ____________________________ what many conspiracy theorists believe, the US has, in fact, succeeded in
putting a man on the moon.

6. Texas still applies the death penalty __________________________ many other states have abolished it.

7. Bernie Sanders did not manage to win a majority of the vote in the primary elections, ____________________
he decided to support Hillary Clinton.

8. Donald Trump won the 2016 election, ______________________ many consider it unlikely he will win again in
2020.
9. POTUS has denounced the media as “fake news,” ____________________________ their criticisms continue.

10. No candidate will be able to get elected _______________________ he or she gets the Latinx vote.

Key Terms (definitions preceded by an asterisk are the most important to retain)

*24-hour news cycle: a constant stream of news in which the idea is often to report first and ask questions later
Advertising: a form of communication used to promote or sell something.
*Bias /ˈbaɪəs/: inclination or prejudice for or against something or someone, especially in a way considered to be
unfair.
Breaking news: an event that has just recently occurred and is being reported to the public for the first time.
Broadcast media: the use of radio and television to transmit information to a wide audience.
Digital media: the use of computers and the Internet to transmit information to a wide audience.
Disinformation: incorrect information that is intended to mislead.
*Echo chamber: a system in which one’s beliefs are reinforced and “echoed” by likeminded individuals.
Editorial: an article in a newspaper written by an editor and giving an opinion rather than reported facts.
*Fake news: fabricated news.
*Fifth estate: referring to the growing power of new social media such as blogs on the Internet to play a part in
the democratic process.
*Fourth estate: a term used to describe the power of journalism to counterbalance governmental powers and serve
democracy by exposing truth and giving a voice to the people.
*Infotainment: a portmanteau of ‘information’ and ‘entertainment,’ it is often referred to as soft news, where the
goal is to entertain as well as report.
*Leak: secret information that is revealed to the general public.
Libel /ˈlaɪbəl/: written defamation.
Lügenpresse: from the German for ‘lying press,’ a slogan used to discredit the mainstream media and often
associated with the Nazis.
*Mainstream media: traditional forms of media, sometimes used pejoratively.
Media circus: also known as a media frenzy, a pejorative term for when an event gets excessive coverage, turning
it into a spectacle.
Misinformation: incorrect information, whether intentional or not.
Net neutrality: the principle that Internet service providers should enable equal access to all content and
applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
Paper of record: a high circulation, high quality newspaper which is considered authoritative, e.g. The New York
Times, El País, The Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde/Le Figaro.
Paywall: a means of restricting access to web content to subscribers.
Print media: the use of newspapers and magazines to transmit information to a wide audience.
Post truth politics: a culture in which objective facts have less influence than emotions and personal beliefs.

21
*Pundit: an expert in a particular field that offers that opinion.
Sensationalism: the use of shocking or exciting language and stories, often at the expense of accuracy.
Slander: spoken defamation.
Sound bite: a short audio extract of a speech or interview.
Spin doctor: someone paid to influence the media narrative on a particular subject.
*Spokesperson: someone who speaks on behalf of a person, a company, a group, etc.
*Subscription: a regular service for which you generally pay a fee in advance, e.g., a newspaper.
Talking head: a pundit or journalist who addresses the camera directly and is shown close up.
Trial by media /ˈtraɪəl/: as opposed to trial by jury, the influence of media coverage on a person’s reputation.
*Watchdog: a person or group that monitors institutions in society.
*Whistleblower: a person who exposes illegal or unethical behavior on the part of a person or organization.
Yellow journalism: the use of sensationalism, exaggeration, and sometimes outright lies in order to sell more
papers, famously associated with the lead-up to the Spanish-American War in 1898.

Going further
The Wall Street Journal has created this interactive tool to compare left and right-wing Facebook posts on specific
topics that are currently trending: http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/

Films related to the media:

Absence of Malice, 1981 (a drama about the legal limits of the media)
All the President’s Men, 1976 (political thriller on the infamous Watergate Scandal)
Citizen Kane, 1941 (considered by many to be the greatest film ever made, its protagonist was based on media
moguls William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer)
Good Night and Good Luck, 2005 (a historical drama covering the battle between journalist Edward R. Murrow and
the infamous scaremonger Senator Joseph McCarthy (who gave us the term ‘McCarthyism’))
I, Tonya, 2017 (a biopic detailing the public fall of Tonya Harding and the media circus around it)
Network, 1976 (a satirical take on television and the origin of the famous line, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going
to take this anymore)
Shattered Glass, 2013 (a biopic detailing the rise and fall of unethical journalist Stephen Glass)
Talk Radio, 1988 (a drama about the assassination of politically charged radio personality Alan Berg by neo-Nazis)
The Paper, 1994 (a comedy-drama following a newspaper editor’s attempt to find the truth behind two murders)
The People vs. Larry Flint, 1996 (the story of Larry Flint, the infamous pornographer who was involved in several
high-profile legal battles over freedom of speech, eventually going to the Supreme Court)
The Truman Show, 1998 (the story of a man who is unknowingly the star of a reality television program)
Wag the Dog, 1997 (a comedy about the use of the media to start a war in order to distract from a presidential
scandal)

Discussion questions:

1. Is objective journalism possible? If so, who decides what is true and what is not? Furthermore, is objective
teaching possible?

2. Is information on the Internet as reliable as traditional print newspapers? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of both media?

3. What is the role of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1791)? Should free speech be
unlimited? What are examples of limits to free speech in the US and France?

22
 Unit 2 – Political Parties

Facts

1) What are political parties?

Political parties are groups of people that are organized based on their political beliefs and goals. In some cases,
political parties are large powerful organizations that run much of the government.

2) Two Main Parties

In the United States there are two main political parties: The Democrats and the Republicans. While voters can vote
for smaller parties, many voters are either registered as Democrats or Republicans and therefore vote along their
party’s lines. Because these two parties are so powerful, the United States government is often called a "two-party
system."

3) Elections in a Two-Party System

The elections in a two-party system are often held in two phases. The first phase is the primary election. In the
primary election each party elects a candidate to represent their party. The next phase is called the general election.
In the general election, the public votes between the winners of the primary election.

These elections are sort of like playoffs in sports. The primary elections are like the semifinals and the general
elections are like the finals.

4) Democrats
The Democratic Party was founded in 1828. It is generally associated with greater government spending and higher
taxes. Members of the Democratic Party are often referred to as "liberals" or "progressives." The symbol of the
Democratic Party is the donkey.

5) Republicans
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. Republicans generally favor lower government
spending, lower taxes, and political action at the state rather than national level. Members of the Republican Party
are often referred to as "conservatives." The symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant.

6) Other Parties
There are other political parties in the United States known as third parties, but they have not been able to make a
significant impact in the government. Some of these parties include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the
Constitution Party. Political parties that have had power in the past include the Whigs, the Federalists, and the
Democratic-Republicans.

7) Advantages and Disadvantages

There are good and bad things about a two-party system. Two-party systems can lead to a more stable government
and less radical politics. On the negative side, two-party systems give the voters only two choices. Voters start to
think that their vote doesn't count for much, causing them not to participate. It also makes it difficult for people with
new ideas to have an influence in the government.

23
Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “Senate Poised to Pass Huge Industrial Policy Bill to Counter China”, David E.
Sanger, The New York Times, June 8, 2021

WASHINGTON — Faced with an urgent competitive threat from China, the Senate is poised to pass the most
expansive industrial policy legislation in U.S. history, blowing past partisan divisions over government support for
private industry to embrace a nearly quarter-trillion-dollar investment in building up America’s manufacturing and
technological edge.

The legislation, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, is expected to pass by a large margin. That alone is a
testament to how commercial and military competition with Beijing has become one of the few issues that can unite
both political parties.

It is an especially striking shift for Republicans, who are following the lead of former President Donald J. Trump and
casting aside what was once their party’s staunch opposition to government intervention in the economy. Now, both
parties are embracing an enormous investment in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence research,
robotics, quantum computing and a range of other technologies.

And while the bill’s sponsors are selling it in part as a jobs plan, the debate over its passage has been laced with
Cold War references and warnings that a failure to act would leave the United States perilously dependent on its
biggest geopolitical adversary.

“Around the globe, authoritarian governments smell blood in the water,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New
York and the majority leader, warned in a recent speech on the Senate floor. “They believe that squabbling
democracies like ours can’t come together and invest in national priorities the way a top-down, centralized and
authoritarian government can. They are rooting for us to fail so they can grab the mantle of global economic
leadership and own the innovations.”

Mr. Schumer and the bill’s other sponsors have steered clear of the phrase “industrial policy,” knowing that would
revive a 30-year-old debate about whether the government was picking winners and losers, or championing certain
industries over others. That argument goes back to the days of the Reagan administration, when the biggest threat
to America’s semiconductor and auto industries seemed to be Japan, and the federal government started some
small-scale initiatives, including one called Sematech, to reinvigorate the semiconductor industry. (The federal
government’s participation in Sematech ended a quarter-century ago.)

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Schumer pushed back on the idea that the United States was seeking to back industrial
champions, as China does. “Industrial policy means we’re going to pick Ford and give them money,” he said.

While some Republicans have balked at the bill’s costs — a $52 billion subsidy program for the country’s
semiconductor firms and another $195 billion in scientific research and development — most are still signing on.
And that has created concerns that the legislation, a classic Washington mash-up of other bills that has grown to
more than 2,400 pages, may be longer on cash than real strategy.

Mr. Schumer rejected that contention in the interview.

“When the government invests in pure forms of research, down the road it creates millions of jobs,” he said, citing
investments in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

His Republican co-sponsor, Senator Todd Young of Indiana, argues that the ideological orthodoxies of his party have
been swept away by the realities of how China funds its “national champions” like Huawei, the telecommunications
giant that is wiring nations around the world with 5G networks capable of directing traffic back to Beijing.

“We can’t be wedded to old doctrines and shibboleths,” Mr. Young said in an interview. “The world has changed. Our
economy has changed. The needs of our country have changed.”

Senator John Cornyn, a conservative Texas Republican who has been critical in the past of government funding of
industry, said of the semiconductor funding, “Frankly, I think China has left us no option but to make these
investments.”

And Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he
has focused on China’s moves to dominate global telecommunications networks, argues that without a robust
domestic industry, the United States has no way of enticing allies away from Chinese suppliers.

24
The bipartisan agreement is jarring in an era of partisan bitterness. But some things never change: The bill has been
a godsend to lobbyists. In addition to many parochial projects inserted in the legislation in a bid to win broader
support, there is a round of funding for NASA that seems likely to benefit Jeff Bezos’ space venture and another
provision that doubles the annual budget of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The bill is gaining support after years in which the United States has objected to government subsidies for private
industry — whether it was Airbus in France or Huawei in China.

Questions:
1. Explain what the present bill is about and why it has been created.
2. How did senators react to it?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence and give your opinion.

Text 2: “How many political parties in the U.S.? Numbers suggest four, not two”, Dante
Chinni, NBC news, 24 January 2021

WASHINGTON — A new president, a new Congress, and the same partisan divide, right? Already the familiar laments
about the red/blue split in Washington have started, and there are many signs those left/right differences are still
alive and well. But as both parties deal with internal tensions, that simple binary color code might miss some
important nuances in 2021’s politics.
The latest NBC News poll shows that both the Democratic and Republican parties have clear divides within themselves
as well, and that could have real meaning in the months ahead on a range of issues.
On the surface the partisan identification numbers look very familiar.

About 4 in 10 registered voters identify as

Democrats or lean Democratic. A smaller
number identify as Republicans or lean
Republican. The remainder are what we call
hard independents or simply don’t care to
answer.
But dig into those two partisan groups a bit
and the numbers change. In fact, four
“parties” emerge in the data.
About 17 percent of those surveyed say they
are Republicans who consider themselves to
be mostly supporters of former President
Donald Trump. Another 17 percent would
characterize themselves as Republicans who
are more supporters of the Republican Party.
And the numbers look familiar on the other side.
About 17 percent of those surveyed say they are Democrats who were supporters of President Joe Biden in the
primaries. And another 17 percent of respondents say they are Democrats who were supporters of the further left-
leaning candidates, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Yes, you read that right. Those are 17's across the board — all even. Of course, those numbers aren’t hard and fast.
A different poll would probably find slight variances in the groups. And all together those numbers still leave about
a third of the registered voters in the survey without a camp.
Still, there are clearly some real divides within the parties and other questions in the poll suggest they might have
meaning in the year ahead.
Consider the way the two groups view the leaders of their respective parties at the moment.

The 17 percent of the poll that is made up of

Trump Republicans doesn’t just like the former
president, they are extremely enthusiastic
about him: 99 percent of them give him a
positive personal rating and 87 percent of that
is “very positive.” To be clear, that is not a job
performance rating; that is a measure of
whether they have positive feelings about him
personally.
Among the party Republicans, the number is
still high, but a bit lower and not so solid. The
“positive feelings” number drops more than 20
points to 78 percent and only 44 percent of that
group is “very positive” about Trump.

25
For the Democrats, Biden has a similarly strong hold over his part of the party. A full 93 percent of Biden Democrats
say they have positive feelings about the president, and 74 percent are “very positive.”

Among Warren/Sanders Democrats, the number drops. Just over 75 percent say they have positive feelings about
Biden and only 27 percent say they have “very positive” feelings about the president.

There is considerable daylight between each of the Democratic and Republican groups. And those attitudes could
shift over time as Trump’s post-presidency and Biden’s Democratic honeymoon periods wear off. Each party could
find itself with some strong internal disagreements.

Among Republicans, the Trump part of

the party is firmly against
compromising with Biden in order gain
consensus on legislation. Only 25
percent of the Trump Republicans
favor that approach.
But party Republicans feel very
differently. More than half, 55 percent,
favor making compromises with Biden
to gain consensus on legislation.
On the Democratic side there are also
splits: 7 in 10 Biden Democrats want
the congressional Democrats to work
to pass the Biden agenda, while 20
percent of that group would rather
“hold the line” for more progressive
policies.
But among Sanders/Warren Democrats, the support for passing the Biden agenda falls to 60 percent, with about 30
percent favoring an approach that holds the line for more progressive policies.

Those are figures that at least suggest there could be some surprises in Congress in the coming months. They are
not numbers that scream party discipline for either side.

Again, these data are from one poll that came during a very tumultuous moment. It was conducted from Jan. 10-
13, just after the Capitol riot and before Biden’s inauguration.

But these splits are nothing new; they reflect divisions in the parties we have been tracking for years now. And the
fact that these splits are this even and this clear as a new administration and Congress checks in may be telling. For
all the social media chatter about a “civil war” brewing in America, these figures suggest the real story in coming
weeks may be intra-party conflict.

Questions:
1. Explain why the US is not a two-party system strictly speaking.
2. Does this division within parties have a negative impact on the Biden presidency? Explain.
3. Comment on the underlined sentence and give your opinion.

Text 3: “Why The Two-Party System Is Effing Up U.S. Democracy”, Lee Drutman,
fivethirtyeight.com, Jun. 16, 2021
Trump and his particular style of party leadership are easy and obvious targets to blame for the decline of American
democracy, as well as the Republican Party’s increasing illiberalism. But if Trump was transformative, the more
important question is: Why was he able to succeed in the first place?

The most compelling theory based on historical patterns of democratic decline is that hyper-polarization cracked the
foundations of American democracy, creating the conditions under which a party could break democratic norms with
impunity, because winning in the short term became more important than maintaining democracy for the long term.

In order for democracy to work, competing parties must accept that they can lose elections, and that it’s okay. But
when partisans see their political opposition not just as the opposition, but as a genuine threat to the well-being of
the nation, support for democratic norms fades because “winning” becomes everything. Politics, in turn, collapses
into an all-out war of “us against them,” a kind of “pernicious polarization” that appears over and over again in
democratic collapses, and bears a striking similarity to what’s currently happening in the U.S.

26
There’s no shortage of plausible explanations for why U.S. politics has become so polarized, but many of these
theories describe impossible-to-reverse trends that have played out across developed democracies, like the rise of
social media and the increased political salience of globalization, immigration and urban-rural cultural divides. All of
these trends are important contributors, for sure. But if they alone are driving illiberalism and hyper-partisanship in
the U.S., then the problem should be consistent across all western democracies. But it isn’t.

What’s happening in the U.S. is distinct in three respects.

First, the animosity that people feel toward opposing parties relative to their own (what’s known as affective
polarization in political science) has grown considerably over the last four decades. According to a June 2020 paper
from economists Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, the increase in affective polarization in the
U.S. is the greatest compared to that of eight other OECD countries over the same time period.

Second, the change in how Americans feel about their party and other parties has been driven by a dramatic decrease
in positive feelings toward the opposing party. In most (though not all) of the nine democracies, voters have become
a little less enthusiastic about their own parties. But only in the U.S. have partisans turned decidedly against the
other party.

Boxell, Gentzkow and Shapiro caution that the cross-country comparisons are not perfect, since they rely on different
survey question wordings over time. But they also don’t pull any punches in their findings: “[O]ur central conclusion
— that the U.S. stands out for the pace of the long-term increase in affective polarization — is not likely an artifact
of data limitations.”

Third, more so than in other countries, Americans report feeling isolated from their own party. When asked to identify
both themselves and their favored party on an 11-point scale in a 2012 survey, Americans identified themselves as,
on average, 1.3 units away from the party that comes closest to espousing their beliefs, according to an analysis
from political scientist Jonathan Rodden. This gap is the highest difference Rodden found among respondents in
comparable democracies. This isolation matters, too, because it means that parties can’t count on enthusiasm from
their own voters — instead, they must demonize the political opposition in order to mobilize voters.

The U.S. is truly exceptional in just how polarized its politics have become, but it’s not alone. People in countries
with majoritarian(ish) democracies, or two very dominant parties dominating its politics like in the U.S. — think
Canada, Britain, Australia — have displayed more unfavorable feelings toward the political opposition.

Questions:
1. Why is hyperpolarization criticized in the article?
2. What are the origins of that hyperpolarization?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence and give your opinion.

Listening Comprehension

Video 1: Is America ready for a third political party? 14 December 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koQD3q_dGLk

A. Pre-listening comprehension
1) Explain or define what a third party is.
2) Do you think the US is ready for a third political party?
3) What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a situation?

B. Listening comprehension
1) Lee Drutman’s book is called “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Coop: The case
for Multiparty Democracy in America”. How does Lee define doom loop? What
are the consequences of this doom loop in the current political system?
2) What arguments does he give in order to prove that a third party could hardly
exist in the USA?
3) What could explain the frustration American people have concerning political
parties?

27
Video 2: The Rise of Political Polarization -- Goldman Stories: Henry Brady, 7 oct. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQRjnM9hQDk
Watch from the beginning to 4.08 min
1) What does polarization mean to you?
2) What were the elements that led to polarization after the New Deal in the 1930s and how easily could they be
overcome at that time?
3) What made polarization deeper in the 1970s and 80s? explain
4) Why have the US come to extreme polarization today? explain
5) What could be the solution to the current issue?
6) Do you agree with part or all the points of that analysis? explain
7) Is politics polarized in your country?

Cartoons

Image 1

“Until the last breath,”

by Petar Pismestrovic,
November 05, 2020

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-11-05/how-political-cartoonists-worldwide-see-fractured-states-america

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/07/right-now-porter-making-america-competitive

Image 2

Making America
Competitive
Again: Can
election reforms
end the
crippling
gridlock in
American
politics?

By Morten
Moreland, 7
July 2021

28
Image 3

Other democracies are polarized, but the

U.S. is unique, by Ryan Best,
ILLUSTRATION BY EMILY SCHERER / GETTY
IMAGES, Jun. 16, 2021
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-
the-two-party-system-is-wrecking-
american-democracy/

Grammar: The articles: a, an, the, ∅

1) ______ president of ______ United States is Joe Biden.

2) ______ president Biden explained ______ last week that he was ready to step down.
3) As ______ honest person, the president told ______ truth.
4) A shooting took place in ______ university yesterday.
5) ______ USA is one of ______ biggest countries in ______ world.
6) ______ Mexico will probably refuse to build ______ wall.
7) ______ tea I drank yesterday was excellent.
8) As ______ journalist, I think ______ freedom of ______ press doesn’t exist anymore.
9) Mister Biden met ______ Queen Elizabeth a few months ago.
10) ______ French love ______ wine just like ______ Americans like ______ guns.

Key terms
It is essential you learn the following list of vocabulary and complete it with words and expressions given in class.

legislation - to legislate on - to legalize/to ban

a political party/force/movement/group
a politician - a policy - politics - a politic*
an election (primary/midterm/general elections) - to elect - a voter - to vote for a candidate
a meeting - a caucus - a committee
to endorse a candidate
to run for office - to be in office
incumbent - incumbency
to win/lose an election/seats
political leaning/ideology/stance/platform - main ideas - core principles
to embrace an ideology/a strategy
to endorse/to defend/to put forward/to put forth an idea
to stand on (an issue)
to be in favor/to be against
to deal with / to tackle an issue
to implement a strategy – the implementation of a strategy/policy
a red state / a blue state - statewide/nationwide
right-wing / left-wing
moderate - radical - purist - progressive - conservative (social conservatism) - liberal (social liberalism ≠
economic/classical liberalism) - libertarian
“big” government - social welfare - state intervention
limited government - open-market economy - free enterprise
raise/cut taxes (!raise ≠ rise!)

29
What you need to know

- Donkey: The now-famous Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson's 1828
presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the
strong-willed animal on his campaign posters.
- Election day: is the day set by law for the general elections of federal public officials. It is statutorily set on "the
Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" or "the first Tuesday after November 1".The earliest
possible date is November 2, and the latest possible date is November 8.
- Electoral college: a body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the president and vice president
of the U.S.
- Elephant: In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Thomas Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's
skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.”
That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.
-General election: the public votes between the winners of the primary election
-Government Shutdown: A government shutdown happens when nonessential government offices can no longer
remain open due to lack of funding. The lack of funding usually occurs when there is a delay in the approval of the
federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The shutdown remains in effect until parties can reach a compromise
and a budget bill passes. During a government shutdown, many federally run operations will halt.
- The GOP: short for Grand Old Party, is a nickname for the Republican Party of the United States.
- Mid-term elections: Midterm elections in the United States are the general elections held in November of even-
numbered years not divisible by four, and thus near the midpoint of a president's four-year term of office. Federal
offices that are up for election during the midterms are members of the United States Congress, including all 435
seats in the United States House of Representatives, and the full terms for 33 or 34 of the 100 seats in the United
States Senate.
- PACs and Super PACs: PACs are funded by individual donations and other PACs, and tend to focus on specific
issues or interests. SuperPACs are funded by corporate donations, and tend to parallel specific candidates or
campaigns. They're regulated in slightly different ways; for example, donations to PACs are capped and donations
to SuperPACs are not. Also, PACs can donate directly to campaigns and SuperPACs cannot.
- Political party: a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties originated
in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and parliamentary
systems, whose development reflects the evolution of parties. The term party has since come to be applied to all
organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution. (Britannica.com)
-Presidential elections: occur every 4 years, with registered voters casting their ballots on Election Day, which,
since 1845 has been the first Tuesday after November 1.
- Primary election: Candidates are elected for federal, state, and local positions during elections. State voters
elect governors and legislators through the primary process, and also vote for many local officials from city councilors
to county commissioners. Candidates who win primaries will run against each other in the general election for public
office.
-Third party: Also called a minor party, a third party is a US political party that distinguishes itself from the two
major parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party). Third parties rarely win elections in the United States,
but frequently influence national politics by drawing attention to issues often neglected by the major parties.
- Two-party system: describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to one of the only
two major parties (Democrats and Republicans), and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such
arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from various factors like winner takes all election rules.

30
 Unit 3 – The 3 Branches of Government
Facts
When the United States officially became an independent country in 1783 (following the American Revolution, which
severed the fledgling country from Great Britain), the main objective of its first leaders, the Founding Fathers, was
to create a political system that would allow their new country to always remain a democracy. This wish was both
logical and bold: it was logical because one of the main reasons why they had wanted to become independent in the
first place was that they no longer wanted to live under the yoke of the King of England and his dictatorial methods.
It was bold because they had to create something that did not exist at the time: a true democracy where the people
would be sovereign.

In order to solve this riddle, they adopted the Constitution of 1787 - still in use today - and applied it to create a
political system based on two main ideas: the separation of powers and checks and balances. These two founding
principles were intended to guarantee the democratic nature of the American political system and to make sure that
the United States could never be turned into a dictatorship.

The separation of powers is simply the idea that in order for a country to be a true democracy, the three powers
(executive, legislative, and judicial) cannot be given to the same person or institution; Instead, they must be
separate and power must be shared in order not to be confiscated. The following picture shows how this system (the
three branches of government) works.

The legislative power was given to

Congress (the House of Representatives and
the Senate), the executive power was given
to the President, and the judicial power to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Each power was defined according to its role
in the law-making process: Congress is the
legislative power because it has to legislate
(create and adopt laws), the President is in
charge of executing the laws adopted by
Congress, and the judiciary is there to both
punish those who violate federal law and
make sure that the laws adopted by
Congress are constitutional.

But dividing power is not enough to ensure

the survival of a democratic system; each
power has to be given the means necessary
to defend itself against potential
encroachments by the other two. Otherwise,
what would prevent the President from
trying to seize the powers of Congress
and/or the Judiciary? This is what checks
and balances are all about. It is basically a
system of mutual surveillance that allows
each branch of power to control the other two and makes sure that no one branch becomes too powerful. For
instance, the President has control over Congress thanks to his veto power and over the Judiciary through his right
to nominate federal judges (including justices of the Supreme Court). The Judiciary can declare any law adopted by
Congress or any decision made by the President to be unconstitutional. As for Congress, it has the capacity to
impeach any member of the federal government up to and including the President. As said by one of the most
famous Founding Fathers, James Madison, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

This system, designed in 1787, is still used today, more than 230 years later, which means that the American
Constitution is often considered to be the oldest still in use today. Accordingly, its main objective has become a
reality: from its independence in 1783 to today, the US has always remained a democracy. Although often criticized
and described as “dysfunctional,” the three branches of government remain the basis of this democratic system.

Questions:
1. Which branch of the U.S. government can propose bills?
2. Which branch of the U.S. government can declare executive actions and/or laws unconstitutional?
3. Which branch of government is the President part of?

31
Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “Regardless of party, US presidents have too much power. Restore

checks and balances”, Larry R. Bradley, The Kansas City Star, July 02, 2020
Even in these divided times, most Americans can agree that our federal government isn’t working very well. During
my 20 years as an Army infantry officer and 14 years in sales management, I focused on making systems more
efficient and effective. Currently, as an advocate for electoral and governmental reforms, I still pursue these goals.
Instead of just complaining about bad outcomes from our government, we should adopt reforms to improve our
electoral process and restore the checks and balances in our Constitution.
For the past decade, I’ve advocated for an election reform called ranked choice voting. Under this proposal, voters
rank candidates in order of choice instead of just picking one. This simple change would result in less partisanship
by incentivizing candidates to appeal to more of the electorate.
But government reforms shouldn’t be limited to just the voting process. They must also address what happens after
candidates are in office — in particular, how our constitutional checks and balances have eroded. President Donald
Trump’s controversial deployment of troops in Washington, D.C., to disperse protesters last month renewed our
focus on presidential emergency powers and the proper use of our fighting forces.
But this presidential overreach with impunity has taken place under presidents of both parties. And while
presidents’ powers have expanded, it’s largely because Congress has been all too willing to abdicate
their own constitutional responsibilities for national security.
We are supposed to have three coequal branches of government. The president is the head of the executive branch,
meaning he or she executes policy determined by the legislative branch, such as the power of the purse and the
power to declare war. Congress is comprised of the people’s directly-elected representatives. In particular, every
seat in the House of Representatives is up for election every two years.
Yet for too long, Congress has been unable or unwilling to serve as the people’s representatives on war powers
issues. Members are too comfortable ignoring examples of executive overreach when a president from their party is
in office, and too willing to pass the buck on tough votes involving our nation’s security. As a result, it’s nearly
impossible for the public to have a real say in debates that have huge implications for military families.
Consider how presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on declarations of national emergency to seize new
powers. While some are appropriate examples of the executive branch acting in the national interest, others are
motivated by more narrow and partisan concerns.
Witness Trump’s dishonest declaration that allowed him to illegally raid congressionally-approved funds for military
construction to help build sections of his border wall. This is a violation of the separation of powers, and one that
should concern all of us, regardless of our views on the wall itself. (Although I think former professional wrestler and
Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura exposed the folly best when he noted that a wall built to keep people out can also
be used to keep people in.)
Thankfully, there is a growing bipartisan movement both inside and outside Congress to restore the proper and
accountable role of our lawmakers on matters of war, peace and national emergencies. Our Kansas and Missouri
congressional delegations should support these efforts, recognizing that if they are truly to represent the interests
of the people, they shouldn’t allow this or any president to behave as a king.
It’s time we adopted reforms to make our government more effective — when all of us vote and when our elected
representatives are sworn to uphold the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution.

Questions:
1. According to the author, what problems is the American political system currently facing?
2. What solutions is he proposing to solve these problems?
3. Comment upon the underlined sentence.

Text 2: ‘‘Who Makes the Law? The Supreme Court’s conservatives may revive
Congress’s role.”, Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2019

In eighth-grade civics, students learn that Congress makes the law, the executive enforces the law, and the
judiciary interprets the law. The Founders designed this separation to prevent one branch from getting too much
power and threatening liberty. Yet in today’s sprawling administrative state, things aren’t so simple. Too often
Congress passes laws stating vague objectives and leaves it to executive-branch officials to work out the
controversial details—the real work of legislating.
The courts have been reluctant to police this blurring of legislative and executive authority, but that may be changing.
In Gundy v. U.S. on Thursday, three of the Supreme Court’s conservatives showed an appetite for rejuvenating the

32
“nondelegation doctrine,” which holds that Congress cannot under the Constitution delegate legislative power to
another body.
The conservatives lost 5-3, but their dissent is significant because Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t participate in the
case, and Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment but without endorsing the logic of the majority opinion.
This suggests that the next time the nondelegation issue reaches the Court, five Justices could be prepared to strike
a blow for the separation of powers, helping to restore the constitutional structure of American governance.
The “delegation” in Gundy arose from the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The bill requires sex
offenders convicted after its passage to register with state and federal governments and sets up a process for doing
so. But for offenders convicted before 2006, the law is vague, leaving registration requirements up to the Attorney
General.
Herman Gundy pleaded guilty to a sex crime in 2005. After his prison sentence he was charged with failure to
register in accordance with the Attorney General’s requirements. He argued that the decision of whether and how
he must register could not be permissibly delegated to the AG.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, agreed. The statute, they
wrote, “purports to endow the nation’s chief prosecutor with the power to write his own criminal code governing the
lives of a half-million citizens.” Justice Alito, a hawk on criminal-justice issues, declined to join the dissent. Yet in his
concurrence, he said that “if a majority of this Court were willing to reconsider” its approach to nondelegation, “I
would support that effort.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court’s four liberals, said Congress depends “on the need to give discretion to
executive officials to implement its programs.” Legal liberals fear that if Congress can’t delegate broad powers to
the bureaucracy, parts of the administrative state will come under pressure.
Yet as Justice Gorsuch noted, “the separation of powers does not prohibit any particular policy outcome, let alone
dictate any conclusion about the proper size and scope of government.” It merely requires that “Congress assemble
a social consensus before choosing our nation’s course on policy questions.” If liberal objectives are popular, they
ought to be able to be passed by elected legislative majorities, not dictated by executive-branch officials.
The rise of executive lawmaking has reduced accountability and increased polarization by absolving members of
Congress of the need to compromise on important questions. The Court’s conservatives appear concerned about this
constitutional deformity. The question for future terms is whether they can unite around a new legal doctrine to
address it. One of the most important projects of the Court’s new center-right majority is to reinvigorate
representative government.

Questions:
1. Explain and discuss the underlined sentence.
2. Use the text as well as any resource you need to define the ‘‘nondelegation doctrine’’.
3. What are the respective positions of the Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative justices regarding this non
delegation doctrine?

Text 3: “Biden’s Business Order Shows How He’s Using Executive Power to
Shape Economy”, adapted from an article by Andrew Restuccia and Jacob M.
Schlesinger, The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2021

President Biden’s sweeping order Friday seeking to spur competition and curb the power of big business highlights
his willingness to use the presidential pen to rewrite economic policy, sidestepping a divided Congress unlikely to
enact his most ambitious proposals. In his first six months in office, Mr. Biden has been more aggressive than recent
predecessors in turning to executive orders and actions as he seeks to overhaul Washington’s approach to everything
from climate change to racial equity. The Friday action was unusually broad, even by recent standards, in directing
at one time more than a dozen agencies to explore 72 actions touching an array of issues, including expanding labor
rights, lowering prescription drug prices, restricting airline fees, and giving bank customers more flexibility to change
accounts.
The order is the culmination of a steady trend over the past two decades of presidents from both parties turning to
executive authority as gridlock on Capitol Hill has blocked them from legislating core parts of their agenda. “We’ve
seen during the last four presidencies, going back to the second Bush administration, an uptick in the number of
executive orders, especially in the early parts of the administrations,” said Dan Bosch, director of regulatory policy
for American Action Forum, a right-leaning Washington think tank. “It’s a recognition by presidents that they need
to act on their own to get things moving in the direction they want.”
Democrats have made competition policy and antitrust enforcement a key part of their agenda, arguing that the
federal government hasn’t done enough to preserve healthy, competitive markets. Republicans have agreed in some
circumstances, particularly in the tech sector, but they say the Biden administration’s moves risk making the U.S.
economy less productive. Democrats have narrow majorities in Congress, meaning most bills require the approval
of Republicans to pass.

33
Mr. Biden’s directives won’t take effect right away because he is urging federal agencies to issue rules or make other
policy changes, which can take months. If they are implemented, there are other limitations: Executive orders can
be overturned by future presidents and regulations can be unwound over time. Legislation enacted by Congress is
much more difficult to undo. “Executive orders can be initiated with the stroke of a pen, but they can also be
overturned just as easily,” said Susan Dudley, a senior White House regulatory official during the George W. Bush
administration.
President Biden’s sweeping order Friday seeking to spur competition and curb the power of big business highlights
his willingness to use the presidential pen to rewrite economic policy, sidestepping a divided Congress unlikely to
enact his most ambitious proposals. In his first six months in office, Mr. Biden has been more aggressive than recent
predecessors in turning to executive orders and actions as he seeks to overhaul Washington’s approach to everything
from climate change to racial equity.
The Friday action was unusually broad, even by recent standards, in directing at one time more than a dozen
agencies to explore 72 actions touching an array of issues, including expanding labor rights, lowering prescription
drug prices, restricting airline fees, and giving bank customers more flexibility to change accounts. The order is the
culmination of a steady trend over the past two decades of presidents from both parties turning to executive authority
as gridlock on Capitol Hill has blocked them from legislating core parts of their agenda. “We’ve seen during the last
four presidencies, going back to the second Bush administration, an uptick in the number of executive orders,
especially in the early parts of the administrations,” said Dan Bosch, director of regulatory policy for American Action
Forum, a right-leaning Washington think tank. “It’s a recognition by presidents that they need to act on their own
to get things moving in the direction they want.”
Democrats have made competition policy and antitrust enforcement a key part of their agenda, arguing that the
federal government hasn’t done enough to preserve healthy, competitive markets. Republicans have agreed in some
circumstances, particularly in the tech sector, but they say the Biden administration’s moves risk making the U.S.
economy less productive. Democrats have narrow majorities in Congress, meaning most bills require the approval
of Republicans to pass.
Mr. Biden’s directives won’t take effect right away because he is urging federal agencies to issue rules or make other
policy changes, which can take months. If they are implemented, there are other limitations: Executive orders can
be overturned by future presidents and regulations can be unwound over time. Legislation enacted by Congress is
much more difficult to undo. “Executive orders can be initiated with the stroke of a pen, but they can also be
overturned just as easily,” said Susan Dudley, a senior White House regulatory official during the George W. Bush
administration. That can add volatility to economic policy-making. “That makes it very difficult for businesses to
plan, if agencies are just going to be reversing decisions every four or eight years,” said Mr. Bosch. “It’s not a steady
course of policy.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday she wouldn’t rule out the possibility of legislative discussions with
Congress in the future, but she said Mr. Biden wanted to take action that would quickly have an impact. Many of the
policies ultimately implemented in response to the order will likely face legal challenges from affected businesses.
Those cases will be heard in a court system that was filled over the past four years by the Trump administration
with judges known for skepticism about aggressive regulatory action. Regulatory scholars said Mr. Biden’s order was
unusual in directing agencies like the FTC and FCC, which are run by bipartisan panels, to take specific action. “That
could fundamentally transform those agencies, trying to align them with White House sweeping rule making,” said
Adam J. White, a regulatory expert at George Mason University’s law school. “That’s going to attract a lot of attention
politically and also in litigation. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.”
Mr. Biden and his aides have often compared the ambition of his economic program to the transformative agendas
of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1930s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1960s Great Society. But those two presidents
enjoyed big Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress willing to enact their proposals. The president is
seeking congressional approval for a multi-trillion-dollar economic agenda. While the infrastructure element of his
proposal has bipartisan support, a second package focused on education, child care and climate change is unlikely
to win GOP buy-in. Democrats are planning to move that legislation through Congress using a budgetary maneuver
that allows the bill to proceed on a simple-majority vote, instead of the minimum 60 votes required to advance most
measures.
President Barack Obama boasted of his “pen and phone” strategy to promulgate rules on his own when Congress
blocked some of his major initiatives. Some of those, such as regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gasses, were
later stopped by courts. In the last year of his administration, Mr. Obama issued his own competition policy executive
order similar to the one Mr. Biden signed Friday. Some of the rules that resulted from that directive were quashed
shortly after Mr. Trump took office. Mr. Biden signed 20 executive orders in his first three days in office and a total
of 40 in his first 100 days—more than Presidents Trump, Obama and Bush.
Questions:
1. In what ways is Biden using executive orders and to what end?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Biden’s use of executive orders?
3. Summarize the text in 50-70 words.

34
Text 4: ‘‘Political War over Replacing Kennedy on Supreme Court is
Underway’’, Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan, The New York Times, June 28,
2018

A political war over replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy roared to life on Thursday in Washington, the start of an
election-season clash over a Supreme Court retirement that will reshape the country’s judicial future.
Hours after Justice Kennedy’s announcement on Wednesday that he will step down July 31, conservative
organizations were mobilizing to support the Republican-controlled Senate in a quick confirmation of a justice who
would be expected to vote against the court’s liberal precedents. One group, the Judicial Crisis Network, has already
started a $1 million ad campaign urging people to support the president’s choice.
Democrats and liberal advocacy organizations face enormous challenges if they hope to prevent President Trump
and the Republicans from installing a conservative justice who would shift the ideological balance of the court for
generations. Mr. Trump has promised to pick from a list of highly conservative jurists, and Republicans control the
Senate, which can confirm the president’s choice by a simple majority. Mr. Trump began wooing senators late
Thursday night, meeting at the White House separately with three Republicans and with the three Democrats — Joe
Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — who broke party ranks
last year and voted to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, the president’s first Supreme Court pick. After the meeting,
Ms. Heitkamp said in a statement that she urged the president to appoint someone who is “pragmatic, fair,
compassionate, committed to justice, and above politics.”
But the effect of Justice Kennedy’s departure has already ignited opposition from many Democratic lawmakers, party
strategists and liberal activists, who vowed a fierce battle to try to preserve decades of liberal court precedents on
abortion, civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and the death penalty. “I think it has sunk in very quickly that
this is the biggest fight of them all,” said Brian Fallon, a veteran Democratic operative whose organization, Demand
Justice, is leading the charge against Mr. Trump’s pick. “If we don’t succeed in this fight, Trumpism will be here for
40 years, not just four years.”
Democratic strategists say the party needs to model its resistance to the successful fight Democratic senators waged
in 1987 against Judge Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s pick for the Supreme Court. After they defeated
Judge Bork, Mr. Reagan eventually settled on Justice Kennedy, who was seen as a more moderate choice. If they
can mobilize Democrats and liberals, lawmakers say they hope to demand a more moderate justice from the current
president, as well. “There are people who have had to withdraw over the years because you get information out and
you question them and the public is focused on it and galvanized by it,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of
Minnesota and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Demand Justice has begun running online ads against three of Mr. Trump’s possible picks and expects to spend more
than $1 million on television ads once the president selects a nominee. One ad targets Judge Amy Coney Barrett,
who is on the president’s list of possible justices, for saying that the Affordable Care Act should have been held
unconstitutional. Another ad is aimed at Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another possible pick, for saying that a president
should be able to “decide whether and when he can be investigated.”
Democrats say they will focus on two main issues, abortion and health care. Mr. Fallon, who worked for President
Barack Obama and was a top spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the challenge will be
convincing people that a Trump justice poses a threat to both issues. “We have to do the work and spend the money
to communicate the consequences of what a 5-4 court with a newly installed justice looks like,” Mr. Fallon
said. Democratic lawmakers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court Thursday morning, flanked by members
of progressive groups, to declare their opposition to all of the potential candidates on Mr. Trump’s public list of 25
possible jurists.
At the Capitol, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, warned of the high stakes in
filling the vacancy. “Make no mistake: Republicans now have the opportunity to erase a generation of progress for
women’s rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, civil rights, workers’ rights and health care,” Ms. Pelosi declared. Strategists say
Democrats must demand that Mr. Trump’s pick for the court affirmatively say whether he or she would uphold Roe
v. Wade, the landmark case establishing a right to abortion. Saying that it is “settled law,” as some conservatives
concede, is not enough, the strategists say. To that end, conservative organizations are planning campaigns to
support a speedy confirmation. “Concerned Women for America is gearing up for our biggest and perhaps most
important confirmation battle in our almost 40-year history,” said Penny Nance, the group’s president. “We plan to
devote considerable resources to this effort, and we expect to win. Our happy warrior/activist ladies relish the fight
and shine in these historic moments.” Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis
Network, said her organization is already running ads targeting Democratic senators in states where Mr. Trump won
during the presidential election. One ad says: “Like they did before, extremists will lie and attack the nominee. But
don’t be fooled. President Trump’s list includes the best of the best.”
Ms. Severino said that she expects liberals to aggressively criticize the president’s pick for the court, no matter who
that person is. “It’s the war on women. Or this person hates the little guy,” she said. “Without even knowing the
nominee, we know the directions they will go. Some of these scaremongering tactics have been used since Reagan’s
appointees. We are expecting that and we are absolutely prepared.”

35
Questions:
1. Use the underlined sentence to explain the nomination process for Supreme Court justices.
2. Why is Justice Kennedy’s replacement such an important and divisive political issue?
3. Summarize the text in 50-70 words.

Listening Comprehension

Audio 1: How is power divided in the United States government? TED-ED by

Belinda Stutzman - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuFR5XBYLfU
Questions
1. Which two groups of elected officials make up the Legislative branch, and what is their primary function?
2. What are some of the functions of the Executive branch?
3. How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? For how long are they appointed?

Cartoons
Question: Look at and analyze the following cartoons. What is the message that you believe the artist
is trying to convey?

Cartoon 1: “Checks,
Balances and the
VP”, Mike Keefe,
intoon.com, 06/27/07

Cartoon 2: “Current state of the 3

branches of Government”, Gary Varvel,
The Indianapolis Star, 08/21/13

Grammar: Present tenses

Exercise 1: Complete the sentences using appropriately the present simple or the present be + -ing.

a. Presidential elections _______________ (occur) every four years, that is why the next one _______________
(take place) this year in November.

b. The Republican candidate always _______________ (win) in most Southern states.

c. Bad news for the Democrats, they _______________ (lose) ground in a lot of constituencies!

36
d. I _______________ (not agree) with his point of view on the legalization of marijuana.

e. The issue of same-sex marriage _______________ (become) a source of division within the Republican Party.

f. Each party _______________ (currently / blame) the other for the failure of Congress.

g. Libertarians _______________ (uphold) the freedom of the individual as the core principle of their ideology while
the Tea Party's platform _______________ (focus) more so on the implementation of strong tax cuts.

Exercise 2: Translate the following sentences into English.

a. Bien que le Parti républicain et le Parti démocrate dominent la scène politique américaine, il existe d'autres
mouvements idéologiques qui mettent en avant des positions alternatives et déterminent le résultat d’élections en
influençant l'opinion publique.

b. Allume la télévision, c'est le dernier discours de son mandat ! Il annonce qu'il ne se représente pas.

c. Le pays traverse une crise économique sans précédent et cela explique pourquoi le président adapte certaines
mesures de son programme à la situation.

d. Aux États-Unis, le Congrès légifère actuellement sur une réforme du système de sécurité sociale.

e. Ils plaident contre toute forme d’interventionnisme de l'état fédéral dans l'économie du pays, dans l'éducation et
dans la santé ainsi que contre la mise en place d'une loi visant à contrôler l'achat et l'utilisation d'armes à feu. Et
toi, tu es d'accord avec eux !

Key Terms
Bicameral: A legislative body (a Congress or a Parliament) consisting of two chambers.
Bill: Law proposal made by either a member of Congress or by the executive branch.
Checks and balances: The idea that in order for the country to remain a democracy, each of the three branches
needs to be given the means to control the other two and make sure that nobody becomes too powerful.
Congress: The legislative branch, responsible with adopting the laws and overseeing the work of the executive
branch, made of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
House of Representatives: The lower house of Congress, made up of 435 representatives, the number of
representatives of each state depends on the population of the state (the most populated state, California, has 53
representatives whereas Wyoming only has 1).
Justices: Used exclusively to refer to the judges of the United States Supreme Court.
Legislative: Branch of government that is responsible for passing laws and controlling the executive branch.
President: Holds the executive power, elected every four years (no more than two terms per president) by the
Electoral College after the American people vote in each state.
Senate: The upper house of Congress, made of a hundred senators (2 per state) elected for six years. 1/3 of the
Senate is renewed every two years.
Representative/Congressperson: A member of the House of Representatives.
Senator: A member of the Senate.
Separation of powers: The idea that the three powers of the government (executive, legislative, judiciary) need
to be given to three different institutions so that nobody can become so powerful as to threaten the democratic
nature of the system.
Supreme Court: Highest court in the country, made of 9 justices who are nominated for life, responsible with
interpreting the laws and the Constitution.
Veto: allows the President to refuse to sign a law if he disagrees with it politically and/or constitutionally. The law
can still be adopted but it then needs to receive the support of 2/3 of each house of Congress.

37
 Unit 4 - Religion
Facts
Despite the Founding Fathers’ intent for the US to be a secular country, religion, specifically Christianity (which
roughly 70% of the population identifies with), plays a very prominent role in society and is at the center of the
culture wars that divide the nation. Although Christianity is often associated with the Right, there are significant
numbers of Christians who identify with the Democratic Party. Catholics, for example, are roughly evenly split on
party affiliation, their traditional tendency to vote Democrat having declined over the years, largely due to that
party’s stance on abortion. That said, the Republican base is solidly Christian and the party relies on the powerful
Christian Right voting bloc for its electoral victories. Perhaps surprisingly, this group has coalesced around Donald
Trump as their champion and largely continues to support him, even after his election loss and the attack on the
Capitol earlier this year.

Although the Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that Congress “shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” conflicts continue between various religious
groups and the irreligious. The US thus has a clear, constitutionally-mandated separation between church and state,
and yet it is heavily influenced by Christianity, despite its basis in Enlightenment thought. Examples of this seeming
contradiction include the existence of blue laws; the phrase “Under God” (added to the Pledge of Allegiance in
1954); the official motto of the US since 1956, “In God We Trust”; the fact that many politicians are sworn into office
on a Bible; the fact that today the President takes the oath of office by concluding “so help me God”; and the fact
that Presidents frequently invoke a deity (e.g. “God bless America”). Every President of the United States has, at
least ostensibly, been a Christian, with only two Catholics among them (Kennedy and Biden), the rest having been
Protestant. (Note: 'Catholic' and 'Christian' are not interchangeable terms as not all Christians are Catholic, e.g.,
Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic but are Christian.)

Although the earliest settlers from England arrived to make a profit, many that followed were seeking religious
freedom, notably the Puritans. Given that the US began as various English colonies, it is unsurprising that it has
always maintained a Protestant majority. Throughout American history, the population has experienced a series of
“Great Awakenings,” revivals and revitalizations of the Protestant faith which have shaped the culture and politics
of the country. The most recent such event took place in the late 20th century, creating the aforementioned Christian
Right voting bloc that influences elections nationwide. Evangelical Protestantism has taken on many extreme forms
such as the prosperity gospel, the mixing of religion and nationalism, and creationism. Such is the power of this
strain of Christianity that candidates in the 2016 Republican primary refused to answer the question of evolution
directly for fear of alienating their base. Due to the changing religious landscape of the country (the rise of secularism
and atheism and the arrival of other faiths), many evangelicals feel under attack, despite the power that they still
hold. While Christians live in every part of the country, they are most dominant in the region known as the Bible
Belt, a very conservative, Protestant-dominated area that covers the entirety of the South and overlaps with
Republican-dominated states.

Religions other than Protestant Christianity have often been viewed with apprehension in the United States, e.g.
Jews and Catholics were commonly subjected to discrimination before being assimilated into mainstream society
during the 20th century. Both groups have since become extremely influential on American culture and politics, with
Muslims also having made their mark, though they are frequently a target of discrimination. Catholicism has existed
in English-speaking North America since the colonial period, but it really gained prominence with the arrival of
European immigrants from countries such as Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Poland in the 19th and early 20th
centuries. Anti-Catholic bigotry showed itself on both occasions that a Catholic ran as the nominee for a major party
in the 20th century (Al Smith in 1928 and JFK in 1960), with some questioning whether they would serve the interests
of the Vatican rather than those of the US. As a testament to how far Catholicism has come in the United States,
President Biden, only the second Catholic to hold the office, barely had his beliefs mentioned at all during the
presidential campaign, and never in a negative light. The Catholic Church has seen declining membership, but more
recently immigrants from Latin America have increased its numbers.

The earliest Jews arrived in the colonial period, but their numbers grew exponentially with the late 19th and early
20th century waves of immigration. Like most other minority groups, Jews typically favor the Democratic Party due
to what is often perceived as the exclusionary nature of the GOP. Muslims are a growing religious identity in the US,
though they, too, have been there since the colonial era (initially in the form of African slaves). Anti-Muslim sentiment
grew enormously following 9/11, and various politically-motivated rumors swirled around Barack Obama such as he
was a “secret Muslim,” attended an Islamic school as a child, and that his middle name was “Mohamed.” Furthermore,
during his presidency, many conservative pundits routinely referred to him as “Barack Hussein” (his real middle
name), in an attempt to connect him to America's two-time foreign foe Saddam Hussein and more generally otherize
him. Attacks against Muslims and Jews have increased over the past few years, though multi-faith initiatives have
been launched in order to create unity and more Muslims now serve in Congress than ever before.

1. How has the religious landscape evolved in the US? Is the US a secular country?
2. Comment on the underlined sentence.

38
Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “How the Satanic Temple aims to promote pluralism in the U.S.”, Émilie Quesnel,
CBC, 5/6/19

The Satanic Temple aims to promote the separation of church and state by “defending pluralistic democracy” in the
U.S., according to its co-founder, Lucien Greaves, featured in a new documentary. The controversial and often
misunderstood nature of the religious movement is the focus of Hail Satan?, which premiered Friday in Canada.

“We're non-theistic so we don't believe in a personal Satan. And a lot of people think our tenets are rather humanistic
and straightforward,” Greaves said of the temple. Satanism gets its name from the “metaphorical construct” of
Satan, who represents blasphemy in the face of strict religious upbringings, he told The Current's guest host Matt
Galloway. “A lot of people in the Satanic Temple came up in a Judeo-Christian background; embracing blasphemy is
very cathartic and enriching to them. And, we have built what we feel has all the elements of a religious community.”

Penny Lane, director of Hail Satan?, explained that she wanted to explore the largely misunderstood mission and
message of Satanism in the documentary. The Salem, Mass., -based temple bills itself as a non-theistic religious
and political activist group that uses imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice and the separation of church
and state “to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people.”

It was officially recognized as a religion in the U.S. last month, when the temple received notice from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) affirming their status as a house of worship. In recent years, the Satanic Temple's main goal
has been advocating for a separation of church and state. Its co-founder, Greaves, argues the border between
religion and politics is not properly put into practice in the U.S. “What people see public-facing from us, of course,
is our church-state battles which are, to us, an act of engagement with our religious deeply-held beliefs,” he said,
referring to the temple’s recently-unveiled monument at the Arkansas State Capitol.

The goat-headed, winged statue called Baphomet was erected as a demonstration of the First Amendment. The
decision was a response to the capitol's previous installment of a Ten Commandments monument, which the Satanic
Temple pegged unconstitutional and discriminatory. “We wanted to assert that pluralism was still alive and well and
we respected diversity in the United States,” Greaves said. “We really feel that we're kind of on the frontline
defending pluralistic democracy from encroaching theocracy … We’re trying to bring tangible positive change.”

Questions:
1. What is unique about this ‘religion’?
2. What is ironic about what they are doing?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence.

Text 2: “Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 116th Congress”, Adapted
from Pew Research Center, 1/3/19

The new, 116th Congress includes the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the House of Representatives, and
is, overall, slightly more religiously diverse than the prior Congress.

There has been a 3-percentage-point decline in the share of members of Congress who identify as Christian – in the
115th Congress, 91% of members were Christian, while in the 116th, 88% are Christian. There are also four more
Jewish members, one additional Muslim and one more Unitarian Universalist in the new Congress – as well as eight
more members who decline to state their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). While the number of self-identified
Christians in Congress has ticked down, Christians as a whole – and especially Protestants and Catholics – are still
overrepresented in proportion to their share in the general public. Indeed, the religious makeup of the new, 116th
Congress is very different from that of the United States population.

But by far the largest difference between the U.S. public and Congress is in the share who are unaffiliated with a
religious group. In the general public, 23% say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” In Congress,
just one person – Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who was recently elected to the Senate after three terms in the
House – says she is religiously unaffiliated, making the share of “nones” in Congress 0.2%. When asked about their
religious affiliation, a growing number of members of Congress decline to specify (categorized as “don’t
know/refused”). This group – all Democrats – numbers 18, or 3% of Congress, up from 10 members (2%) in the
115th Congress. Their reasons for this decision may vary. But one member in this category, Rep. Jared Huffman, D-
Calif., announced in 2017 that he identifies as a humanist and says he is not sure God exists. Huffman remains
categorized as “don’t know/refused” because he declined to state his religious identity in the CQ Roll Call
questionnaire used to collect data for this report.

There are five fewer Catholics and three fewer Mormons in the new Congress. There has been no change in the
number of Orthodox Christians (five seats in both the new and prior Congress).

39
Among non-Christians, four additional Jewish members bring the Jewish share of the new Congress to 6% – three
times the share of Jews in the general public (2%). Additionally, Unitarian Universalists gained one seat.
Muslim women join the new Congress for the first time – Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota Democrat
Ilhan Omar. They join Andre Carson, a Muslim Democrat from Indiana, in the House, bringing the number of Muslims
in the new Congress to three – one more than in the 115th Congress. (Omar represents Minnesota’s 5th district –
replacing Keith Ellison, who was the first Muslim elected to Congress in 2006.)
The number of Hindus in Congress is holding steady at three. All of the Hindus from the 115th Congress are returning
for the 116th: Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill.; and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii. The
number of Buddhists in Congress has dropped by one. Colleen Hanabusa, D-Hawaii, decided to run for governor in
Hawaii rather than seek re-election in the House. (She was ultimately unsuccessful in her gubernatorial campaign.)
Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson and Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, both Buddhist members of the
previous Congress, are returning for the 116th. Sinema remains the sole member of Congress who publicly identifies
as religiously unaffiliated, although there has been an increase of eight members in the “don’t know/refused”
category.

Christians make up large majorities in both chambers. In fact, Protestants alone form majorities in both the House
(54%) and the Senate (60%). For the most part, there are only modest differences between the chambers within
the Protestant denominational families, except when it comes to Presbyterians: There are 13 Presbyterians in each
chamber, making up 13% of the Senate and just 3% of the House. In the 116th Congress, just two of the 252 GOP
members do not identify as Christian: Reps. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., and David Kustoff, R-Tenn., are Jewish. By contrast,
61 of the 282 Democrats do not identify as Christian. More than half of the 61 are Jewish (32), and 18 decline to
specify a religious affiliation. Congressional Democrats also include Hindus (3), Muslims (3), Buddhists (2), Unitarian
Universalists (2) and one religiously unaffiliated member. Republican members of Congress are more likely than
Democratic members to identify as Protestants (70% vs. 41%). Democrats in Congress, by contrast, are more likely
to be Catholic – 35% of congressional Democrats are Catholic, compared with 25% of Republicans in Congress.
Of the new members, fully 81% identify as Christians. While this is lower than the Christian share of incumbents, it
is still higher than the share of U.S. adults who are Christian (71%). Over the 11 congresses for which Pew Research
Center has data, the 116th has the lowest number of both Christians (471) and Protestants (293). The 116th
Congress also has the fewest Mormon members in at least a decade – members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints now number 10, a low over the last six congresses. Catholics have held steady at 31% over the
last four congresses, although there are now many more Catholics in Congress than there were in the first Congress
for which Pew Research Center has data (19% in the 87th Congress, which began in 1961). The share of Jewish
members also has increased markedly since the early ’60s.

Questions:
1. Which groups are underrepresented and which are overrepresented?
2. What differences do you see between the two parties?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence.

Text 3: “Is Christianity Really Shrinking?”, Glenn T. Stanton, Fox News, 7/6/19
There’s been a rash of stories lately suggesting Christianity is in steep decline and that atheism is rapidly becoming
the largest “religion” in the United States. But is such news true? Is Christianity really going the way of the VHS
tape? No. As President Ronald Reagan once said of liberals: “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that
they know so many things that aren’t so.” Christianity is certainly not declining, and our nation’s citizens are not
growing more secular. Let’s look at just three questions that reveal the actual story based on a broad array of leading
academic research from our nation’s top sociologists of religion.

Where is church membership down?

Is church membership actually down over the last few decades? Yes and no. It depends on what branch of Christianity
we’re talking about – the liberal mainliners or the more conservative, biblically faithful evangelical and non-
denominational churches. Greg Smith, the widely respected associate director of research at the Pew Research
Center, confidently explains that while the more liberal mainline churches are hemorrhaging members -- between 5
million to 7.5 million members in the last 10 years or so – things are completely different for evangelical and non-
denominational churches.

Smith explains: “There is nothing in these data to suggest that Christianity is dying. That evangelicalism is dying.
That Catholicism is dying. That is not the case whatsoever. … I would say, that particularly compared with other
Christian traditions in the United States, Evangelicalism is quite strong.”
Harvard/Indiana University-based research found the same thing: “Evangelicals are not on the decline” but “grew
from 1972 when they were 18 percent of the population, to a steady level of about 28 percent” from the late 1980s
to 2016. Over the same time, the liberal mainline churches declined from 35 to 12 percent.

Are the number of unbelievers growing?

Recently, the Daily Wire proclaimed: “‘Atheism Becomes Largest Religion in US” and the story spread widely. It’s

40
not true, not even close. Pew tells us that only 3 percent of American adults say they are atheists. Another 4 percent
say they are agnostic. And 71 percent say they are Christians. But who are these infamous and little-understood
unbelievers? They are not new converts to unbelief, as most of us have been told. They’re those who are simply
becoming more honest about the faith they never had in the first place.

Rodney Stark of Baylor University, one of the world’s most distinguished scholars in this field, explains: “Today,
when asked their religious preference, instead of saying Methodist or Catholic, now a larger proportion of non-
attenders say ‘none,’ by which they most seem to mean ‘no actual membership.’” Stark says the wealth of data he
has studied along with his peers “does not support claims for increased secularization, let alone a decrease in the
number of Christians.” In fact, the Pew Research Center finds that only 12 percent of young and older adults who
say they no longer hold to the Protestant or Catholic faith said they had any kind of meaningful faith in their youth.
And you can’t hang onto what you never really had.

Is conservative faith holding strong?

The Harvard/Indiana researchers discovered that our nation is not growing more secular like many Western European
nations, but quite the opposite. “Rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would
suggest, intense religion – strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism – is persistent,
and in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States,” researchers found.
The closing sentence of their published research is as direct: “American religion remains persistently and
exceptionally intense.” And by religion, they’re primarily referring to Christianity. The bottom line is this: faithful
Christianity – that which takes the Bible at its word, believes Jesus really is God, that He died on a real cross, rose
from a real grave and offers real freedom from real sin to all who ask – is doing quite well. Theodore Beza, John
Calvin’s successor said it well long ago: “Let it be your pleasure to remember the Church is an anvil which has worn
out many a hammer.” It has and will keep chugging along.

Questions:
1. How is the reported decline in Christianity explained away?
2. What is the point of this article? What does it reveal about its target audience?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence.

Text 4: “The Political Implications of White Evangelical Decline”, Sarah Jones,

Intelligencer, 7/9/21
A new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute shows white Evangelicals last year experienced “the most
precipitous drop in affiliation” among American religious groups since 2006, shrinking from 23 percent of Americans
that year to 14 percent in 2020. Their mainline Protestant peers, however, have enjoyed something of a resurgence,
picking up members as Evangelical numbers declined.
There are inescapable political implications to any religious trend, and the fortunes of white Evangelicalism are no
different. In particular, they present potential problems for the GOP, which still relies on white Evangelicals as a key
portion of its base.
Among Republicans, two-thirds identify as white Christians of some persuasion, according to PRRI, with 29 percent
identifying as white Evangelicals specifically, a decline from previous years that reflects the general downward slope
of white Evangelical affiliation. People who identify themselves as white Evangelicals remain highly enthusiastic
about Donald Trump. A recent Pew Research study found that he actually expanded his share of the Evangelical vote
in 2020, rising from 77 percent in 2016 to 84 percent four years later.
While white Evangelicals are shrinking as a share of the population, they’re also getting older. PRRI reports that they
“are the oldest religious group in the U.S., with a median age of 56, compared to the median age in the country of
47.” This isn’t exactly a sign that a religious tradition has a robust demographic future; it’s also, again, a problem
for the GOP, if not an insurmountable one. One possibility is that Republicans will continue to make inroads with
Hispanic voters, expanding its base to stave off irrelevance. Other possibilities are more concerning still. Confronted
with a demographic crisis that affects its core constituencies, the party could double down on nationalist rhetoric
and on voter suppression as a means of keeping power. Trumpism, in other words, may be the glue that keeps its
base intact, even though it alienates a larger share of the population.
The Republican Party’s traditional coalition has far to go before it fades altogether; liberal triumphalism won’t win
elections or protect anyone from the conservative movement’s encroaching hostility toward multiracial democracy.
Demographics are not destiny after all. Even so, the decline of white Evangelicals sends a deeper message. The
marriage of religion and politics — and quite specifically, religion and the nativist, far-right politics of the GOP —
might help win an election here and there. In this case, however, temporal victories may come at an ecclesiastical
cost. White Evangelicals haven’t lost their grip on political power quite yet, but their moral power is in question. As
they shrink, they may lose their ability to fulfill the religious calling at the heart of their identity. If Evangelism is
going to work, it requires some moral authority. Perhaps by siding with Trump, white Evangelicals are losing theirs,
fast.
Questions:
1. What is the worry here for the GOP?
2. Based on the article, what does Trumpism represent?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence.

41
Listening Comprehension

Video 1: “America has outgrown its ‘Judeo-Christian’ label. What’s next?”,

4:02
Source: https://bigthink.com/Charles-Koch-Foundation/judeo-christian

1. According to Eboo, what similarities exist between the 1920s and today?
2. What is the background of the term Judeo-Christian? Why was it created? What is problematic about it today?
3. What is the concept of an “interfaith nation” as described in the video?

Video 2: “The Secret History of Muslims in the U.S.”, 3:19

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPYIdfYfEKM
1. What impacts have Muslims had on US history?
2. What examples of respect for Muslims are given in the video?
3. What does Professor Rashid mean when he says that people were trying to recover their heritage?

Video 3: “America’s Hidden History Series | For Your Gift of Support” 1:30
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVNVcR1_Vx0
1. What claim is made regarding the telling of American history?
2. What do you receive for a donation of $70? And for $1,080 or more?
3. What do you think their goal is?

Cartoons
Cartoon 1: Pat Bagley, Cagle, 5/13/15

Cartoon 2: John Cole, NC Policy Watch, 4/8/13

42
Cartoon 3: David Horsey, The Seattle Times, 2004

Grammar: Present Perfect & Preterite

Fill in the blanks with the correct tense (present perfect or preterite)

There __________ multiple Christian denominations since before the American Revolution. (to be)
Wicca __________ in the United States since at least the 1960s. (to be practiced)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy is the only Catholic president the US __________. (to have)
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, __________ many years ago, but his church ________. (to die; to
continue)
Muslims __________ in the US for centuries, and yet it wasn’t long ago that the first one ________ to serve in
Congress. (to live; to be elected)
There __________ a lot of interfaith cooperation since the beginning of the 21st century. (to be)
Snake handlers ________ in the Appalachian Mountains since the 1910s. (to exist)
The Mormons ________ themselves in Utah 170 years ago and they ________ there ever since. (to establish; to
live)

Key Terms

Bible Belt: a region covering the South dominated by socially conservative Protestants and characterized by
prominent Christianity and strong support for the Republican Party.
Blue laws: laws prohibiting certain activities, specifically on Sunday, often associated with New England, the
Puritans and their strict religious beliefs, e.g., in Connecticut it is illegal to buy alcohol in a shop on Sundays.
Born again: a term generally associated with evangelicals that is characterized by a zealous attitude and the belief
in a personal relationship with Christ
Creationism: the notion that existence is of divine creation as recounted in the Bible, in opposition to the theory of
evolution.
Cult: a pejorative term for a religion group, often small, with beliefs outside of the mainstream.
Culture wars: the conflict between right and left in the US, of which religion is a key factor. Examples of points of
disagreement include abortion, censorship, contraception, historical interpretation, LGBTQ rights, recreational drug
use, sexual education, and separation of church and state
Dominionism: the movement, characterized by a belief in evangelical supremacy, to establish Christian dominance
over the United States and its government, including the implementation of biblical law
Ecumenical: representing various Christian denominations, regardless of their specific beliefs
Evangelical: a general term for fervent Protestants, concentrated in but not unique to the South, who promote the
spread of their beliefs
First Amendment: an amendment to the Constitution that disallows Congress from passing laws that limit religious
freedom, freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and to petition
Great Awakening: a series of Protestant revivals and reimaginings that would have a profound impact on American
history, inspiring millions and championing various socio-political causes
Intelligent design: the pseudoscientific theory that runs counter to evolution and states that evidence of design

43
by God exists in nature
Megachurch: an evangelical church of unusually large size, e.g., Lakewood Church, which has a capacity of 16,800
Pro-choice: a euphemism for those who defend abortion, i.e., a woman’s right to choose.
Pro-life: a euphemism for those who are against abortion, i.e., the right to the life (for a fetus or embryo).
Protestantism: a general term for Western churches separate from Roman Catholicism, as diverse as Adventists,
Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, amongst others. The origins of Protestantism are
the Reformation
Puritans: extremely severe and pious Protestants disappointed with the extent of the English Reformation who
would have a major impact on the nascent New England colonies that is still felt today. Ironically, their former
domain is now amongst the least religious parts of the country. They are often associated with the Salem witch
trials.
Religious right: also known as the Christian right, this powerful voting bloc is characterized by socially conservative
views
Roe v. Wade: the Supreme Court decision that essentially legalized abortion in the United States. It is perhaps the
most famous decision in the US, being a flashpoint in the battle over abortion and the reason why SCOTUS
appointments are so important to many Americans.
Scopes Monkey Trial: the infamous, sensationalized 1925 court case in which a school teacher was accused of
having taught evolution, contrary to Tennessee law. This trial exposed and accelerated a schism in Protestantism
Secularism: the principle of separation of church and state

Going Further: Films related to religion in the United States:

Banking on Heaven, 2005 (a documentary focusing on a polygamous breakaway Mormon sect)
Believer, 2018 (a documentary on LGBT Mormons)
Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi, 2007 (a documentary on evangelicals, including the
aforementioned Lakewood Church)
God’s Not Dead, 2014 (a Christian drama in which a university professor challenges a student’s faith; note: it
received terribly reviews but it is at the very least a window into evangelical thought)
Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, 2015 (a documentary on the alleged abuse by the Church of
Scientology; note: in France it is considered a cult)
Holy Hell, 2016 (a documentary on the Buddhafield cult by an ex-member)
Inherit the Wind, 1960 (one of numerous films based on the play of the same name, it is a fictionalized account of
the Scopes Monkey Trial)
Jesus Camp, 2006 (a documentary on a fundamentalist Christian summer camp)
Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath, 2016 (a documentary featuring the titular actress and her experiences
with the Church of Scientology)
Marjoe, 1972 (a documentary about a former child preacher who continues to preach while acknowledging that he
does not believe)
One of Us, 2017 (a documentary from the directors of Jesus Camp, this time exploring ex-Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn
and their experiences leaving their faith and subsequent ostracizing)
Religulous, 2008 (a documentary by left-wing comedian Bill Maher that, as its name implies, is very critical of
religion)
Sons of Perdition, 2010 (a documentary on teenagers that have been excommunicated from the Fundamentalist
Church of Latter-Day Saints - the same “church” as in Banking on Heaven)
The Protocols of Zion, 2005 (a documentary about the reappearance of anti-Semitism in the US following 9/11)
Truth be Told, 2012 (a very critical documentary on Jehovah’s Witnesses)
The Witch: A New England Folktale, 2015 (a horror film focusing on a Puritan family, lavishly praised for its realistic
portrayal of colonial-era New England religion)
Wild Wild Country, 2018 (a documentary on a 1980s cult based out of Oregon)

44
 Unit 5 – Immigration
Facts
The first immigrants were the ancestors of Native Americans, who probably crossed the Bering Straits from Asia
around 30 000 years ago. Vikings probably visited North America from around 1 000 A.D. onwards, but if they did
settle, their colonies were short-lived.

1565 - 1790: The first European settlements were the forts established by Spain in Florida, such as St. Augustine,
from 1565 onwards, but proper colonies began with the English colony at Jamestown, in Virginia, established in
1607. Having left England to escape religious persecution, 100 English Puritans, the “Pilgrim Fathers”, arrived at
Plymouth, Massachusetts, aboard The Mayflower in 1620. They were followed by tens of thousands more, creating
several colonies in New England, along with Harvard University in 1635. Scottish and Irish immigrants began arriving
too, for the same religious reasons. The first settlers were overwhelmingly British.

The Dutch set up colonies from 1626, including New Amsterdam (former name for New York). Many German
Protestants also settled at around the same time. France set up colonies, notably in Louisiana, but several decades
later. Last, but certainly not least, Africans began arriving in very large numbers, as slaves, from around 1620
onwards. The first census was taken in 1790: there were 3 900 000 inhabitants: 2 560 000 British, 757 000 Africans,
270 000 Germans, 100 000 Dutch, 15 000 French and 2 000 Swedish, the remainder consisting of descendants of
the first English settlers.

1820 - 1880: By 1820, the population had reached 10 million, but only around 180 000 had arrived as immigrants
between 1790 and 1820. Large-scale immigration began again, especially from Ireland and Germany. After 1845, a
million Irish Catholics arrived, fleeing the Great Irish Famine, provoking the first wave of anti-immigration xenophobia
(e.g., the cartoon below on the left, from 1871). By 1880, 3 million Irish, 3 million Germans, 2 million British, plus
750 000 French, especially from Canada and 230 000 Chinese had arrived. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was
passed to limit the latter’s arrivals. The cartoon below on the right, from 1882, shows a fictitious anti-Chinese wall:

1881 – 1930: With the invention of the steamboat, travel became quicker and easier, so immigration soared. 25M
immigrants arrived, of whom 4.6M Italians, 4M Austrians, 3.3M Russians (of whom 2M Jews, fleeing the pogroms),
2.3M Germans (this included Poles) and a further 4M British and Irish arrived.

1930 – 1965: The Great Depression plus a series of laws to limit immigration, including a system of restrictive quotas
by nationality, passed in the 20s, slowed the number of arrivals to less than 4M.

1965 – present day: The Immigration and Nationalities Act in 1965 abolished the quota system which had favoured
immigration from northern European countries, allowing a new influx of immigrants from other countries, especially
Mexico. It is estimated that over 60M immigrants have arrived since 1965.

According to the Census Bureau, net migration to the US (immigrants minus emigrants) in 2020 was 587K (for 330M
inhabitants). The size of the US is 9 834 km2.

These are comparable 2020 net migration figures for France and the UK (pre-COVID lockdowns):
France: Size: 644K km2 Population : 67M Net migration: 46 000 (estimation Statista)
UK: Size: 242K km2 Population : 67M Net migration: 313 000 (Source ONS)

So, is the USA still a “Land of Immigration”?

45
Introduction

The Godfather Part 2, Hola Soy Jey, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubT-Bm36L2U (3:45)

You are going to watch an extract from The Godfather, part 2.

Vito Corleone, the founder of the Corleone dynasty in the US, arrives in New York for the first time as a young boy.
Try to identify places and the period of history evoked in this extract.

- Is Corleone his real surname?

- To what extent does Vito Corleone’s personal history reflect the history of immigration to the US?

Essay question/debate question: Is America a Melting Pot or a Salad Bowl (see the Key Terms section at the end of
the unit for definitions of these terms)?

Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “We Are Not Enemies. We Are Essential Workers. Pandemic or not, immigrants’
work has always been essential”, Yasin Kakande, The New York Times, May 18 2020

Recently, as I drove home from a long day of work as a home health aide, a police cruiser appeared behind me with
lights flashing. It was 10 p.m. and the roads were nearly empty. As I pulled to the side of the road, my heart was
pounding.

As a black man from Uganda, I was nervous. Charlie Baker, the governor of Massachusetts, had just issued a 9 p.m.
curfew across the state. In the three excruciatingly long minutes it took for the officer to approach my car, I tried
to sort out why I was being stopped and what would happen next.

When the officer appeared at my window, he asked just one question: “Essential worker?” I quickly replied that I
was. He waved me off without asking for my driver’s license — my skin colour told him everything he needed to
know.

Many black people in America are on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic, working as caregivers, health care
professionals, grocery store workers, delivery people and other essential service providers. In rural areas around
the country, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants work as field hands and in factories and
warehouses to ensure the nation’s food chain continues to function.

The work immigrants do has always been essential — it’s just not often recognized as such. After the public health
crisis is over, will we find the political will to change things, or will populist politicians return to demonize immigrants
as dangerous criminals, job stealers or parasites feeding on tax-funded public assistance?

For the moment, essential workers have mostly been spared unjustifiable scrutiny by law enforcement. And many
are finally able to enjoy work-related benefits that their employers have long resisted. In Massachusetts,
employment agencies are advertising jobs for caregivers that pay between $25 and $30 an hour, well above the
pre-pandemic hourly rate of $12 to $15. There have also been plenty of overtime opportunities, with the hourly rate
one and a half times the normal wage.

Even as the benefits have doubled, the challenges of working on the front lines have multiplied. My younger brother,
Wahab, works as a licensed practical nurse in a nursing home. He has seen an increasing number of patients testing
positive for the coronavirus. Several have died. My brother mourns for these patients. He cared for some of them
for over a year and had formed close bonds. My brother’s background is in health care. He graduated as a radiologist
in Uganda and practiced for a few years before migrating to the United States. Never before has he seen so many
patients dying. During the pandemic, he has become withdrawn and talks less when he returns home. Relatives
keep calling me to ask why he doesn’t answer their calls or return their messages. I tell them not to worry, even as
I see the pandemic taking a toll on him. I ask them to wait until things get better.

One day Wahab returned to our one-bedroom apartment with news that so many health care workers fear. He had
tested positive for Covid-19 and was required to stay home for at least two weeks. I, too, had to quarantine for two
weeks because, as his roommate, I had been exposed.

During his quarantine, my brother’s supervisor, who was working remotely at her home, called to see how he was
doing. She asked Wahab if he had developed any symptoms and if there was anything he needed. Each call ended
with her reminding him that he would be retested and if the results were negative, he would be able to return to
work immediately, especially as the nursing home was short on staff.

46
After every call, my brother said, in a half-joking way, that he had never seen his boss act so caring. He returned
to work after two weeks. The pandemic, as tragic as it has been, underscores the importance of the work
contributions of immigrants. It is disheartening to see that there are still plenty of people who portray us as enemies
or social parasites, especially when we are visible in every industry and workplace that has been designated as
essential during our current crisis.

We are caring for the sick, the elderly, the disabled, children and babies. We’re delivering your food and packages,
working on your farms, in your factories and warehouses. Pandemic or not, this work has always been essential.
We need the political will to enact compassionate, realistic and decent reforms that mitigate, reduce and ultimately
eliminate the barriers that prevent so many of us from making a living wage. We must think about those who are
underpaid and exploited, including immigrants who flee terrible situations in their homelands, come here to make
an honest living and are grateful to pay taxes.

Migrants like me and my brother are here because we want to work and provide for our families, just like you. We
are proud to be a part of the essential work force. We are even prouder to work on behalf of all American workers
in the common effort to secure income equality and economic parity for everyone.

Questions:
1. Why was the author worried when he was stopped by police?
2. Why have migrant workers become more important to US society?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence in the text: We are even prouder to work on behalf of all
American workers in the common effort to secure income equality and economic parity for
everyone.

Text 2: “The Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border Can't Be 'Solved' Without

Acknowledging Its Origins”, Julia G. Young, Time, March 31st 2021

With the U.S. “on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,”
as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement March 16, immigration at the U.S.-Mexico
border has emerged as one of the toughest challenges facing the Biden Administration, but the issue is one that has
dogged his predecessors for decades.

There’s a reason why the U.S. government has failed for so many years to “control” the border: none of these
policies have addressed the real reasons for migration itself, known as “push” and “pull” factors.

Today, the countries sending the most migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border–especially the Central American countries
of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador–are experiencing a combination of push factors that include poverty and
inequality, political instability, and violence. And while the current situation may be unique, it is also deeply rooted
in history.

Many countries in Central America have struggled with poverty since the time of independence from Spain in the
early 19th century. In the years after Spanish control, they were typically ruled by small oligarchies that
disproportionately held wealth, land and power, and their economies were primary export-dependent, which brought
great riches to landowners but also great inequality and poverty of the majority. Those dynamics have carried
forward to today. More recently, climate change–in particular, drought and massive storms–has forced the vulnerable
rural poor out of the countryside.

Throughout Central America, political instability has also been a long-term problem. In the 19th and early 20th
centuries, there were constant struggles between liberal and conservative elites. The United States often
exacerbated these conflicts, deploying the U.S. Marines in Latin America whenever political uprisings seemed to
threaten U.S. business interests or national security.

By the mid-20th century, there were new and worse waves of political violence. Popular movements on the Left
attempted to challenge old hierarchies and ruling classes. Conservative political elites often responded to these
movements by inviting the military to take power. These conflicts generated huge surges in emigration, establishing
the migration patterns that persist today.

A final push factor is gang violence. MS-13, now one of the largest gangs in the world, was founded in Los Angeles
in the 1980s, within communities of Central American refugees who had fled civil wars. Many of these gang members
were subsequently deported to Central America. With governments incapable of dealing with this criminal influx,
there was a huge rise in violence, contributing to a new increase in emigration.
Pull factors in the U.S. have also created the conditions for continued unauthorized migration from Central America.
Since the 1990s, entire sectors of the U.S. economy have become increasingly dependent on low-wage immigrant
labour, especially agriculture, the service industry (restaurants and housecleaning), and construction.

47
Despite the demand, U.S. immigration policy makes it very difficult for would-be migrants from Latin America to
come to the United States legally. This situation incentivizes risky border crossings and unauthorized entry into the
United States.

There is one way that immigrants from Central America can legally migrate immediately—and that is by requesting
asylum after they arrive in the United States. The previous administration made every effort to limit their ability to
obtain it. Now the Biden Administration must decide whether to restore the asylum framework, which has become
the only possible path to legal migration.

Given the complicated and deep-rooted reasons behind migration, lawmakers cannot control or “solve” the ongoing
crisis at the border by simply pouring money and resources into ever more militaristic border theatre. It’s no wonder
that decades of such policies have done little to change the underlying dynamics.

Instead, if Americans are serious about changing the situation at the border, we need to address the push and pull
factors behind Central American migration. We need to acknowledge the reality of the U.S. economy (in particular,
that it demands immigrant labour to work low-wage jobs) and work to construct new legal frameworks that reflect
that reality. We need to target financial and logistical support to encourage Central American countries to address
the poverty and inequality that fuel migration, rather than cutting foreign aid, as the Trump Administration did. We
need to do all we can to end the pervasive gang violence that pushes so many migrants out of their homelands. And
of course, we must continue to evaluate our own historical and contemporary role in creating the longstanding
problems that are pushing Central Americans to migrate.

Questions:
1. What is the current situation at the border, is it new and how have previous governments fared?
2. What does the author suggest are the most important reasons for the crisis?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence from the text: “We need to target financial and logistical
support to encourage Central American countries to address the poverty and inequality that fuel
migration, rather than cutting foreign aid, as the Trump Administration did.”

Text 3: “Americans Say Immigrants Should Learn English. But U.S. Policy Makes That
Hard”, Olga Khazan, The Atlantic, June 4th 2021

“Speak English!” can be one of the cruellest things for an immigrant to hear. It can sound simultaneously like a
demand for instant assimilation, an accusation of disloyalty, and a presumption of stubbornness or ignorance. In
some circles, the call for immigrants to speak English has fused with a call for less immigration in general, as though
language differences are themselves offensive. It’s no accident that “You have to speak English!” was a Donald
Trump rallying cry.

The uncomfortable reality is that learning English can, in fact, make immigrants’ lives much better. Immigrants who
learn English improve both their earnings and their acceptance by other Americans. Unfortunately, it’s extremely
difficult for immigrants to find English classes that are affordable and accessible.

In the U.S., English proficiency and earnings are tightly bound. Overall, immigrants make up a sixth of the American
workforce, and immigrants who learn English earn more, mostly because they become eligible for higher-paying
jobs.

Rightly or wrongly, immigrants’ English skills influence Americans’ views of immigration. A majority of Americans
believe that a person must speak English to be considered American. Though Republicans are more likely to strongly
endorse this view, even majorities of first-generation immigrants and liberal Democrats believe that English fluency
is necessary for integration into American society. This isn’t necessarily a measure of xenophobia; people of both
parties tend to be accepting of those who speak English with an accent.

The U.S. has an unusually laissez-faire attitude toward immigrant integration. Other industrialized countries do more
to integrate immigrants and refugees into their society. In Sweden, foreigners get unlimited Swedish lessons at no
cost; sometimes these lessons are built into job-training programs. The U.S., though, has no national policy aimed
at helping immigrants become full-fledged Americans.

Recent immigrants to the U.S. generally have better English skills than those who immigrated a century ago. A
Mexican who immigrated in 2010 is more likely to learn English than an Italian who immigrated in 1910 was. Still,
about 10 percent of working-age adults—at least 11 million people—don’t speak English well.

Community colleges and private instructors offer English lessons for a fee, but many English learners don’t have the
money for these. (Most immigrants make less than $50,000 a year, and 15 percent live in poverty.)

48
The options for the majority of immigrants who can’t afford private classes are much more limited. “If somebody is
looking for free access to English-language classes, right now the adult-education system is the primary vehicle,”
says Ali Noorani, the president of the National Immigration Forum.
Where they do exist, these classes are in short supply—many states and localities have waiting lists. In
Massachusetts, 16,000 people were on the waiting list for ESL classes in 2018.

America is essentially demanding that immigrants learn English without giving them the means to do so.

Unlike some countries, the U.S. does not pay immigrants for their language-learning time, which they typically need
to spend working. Even when classes are available, immigrants might not attend, because they work two or three
jobs and lack transportation or child care.

To change America’s approach to teaching immigrants English, the federal government has to dump more money
on the problem. But increasing the number of immigrants who learn English, and how fast they do so, may also
require a cultural shift. For a more enlightened approach to English learners, Americans have to stop looking at
immigrants as “a collection of deficits.” “There aren’t a lot of places for optimism right now,” Vargas said, “but this
is one of them.”

Questions:
1. Why is it so important for immigrants to speak English?
2. Why is it so difficult for immigrants to learn English?
3. Comment on the underlined phrase from the text: “A Mexican who immigrated in 2010 is more likely
to learn English than an Italian who immigrated in 1910 was.”

Listening Comprehension

Video 1: “How hard is it to legally enter the US?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8T9651KKag (3:23)

1. How many visas were issued in 2014?

2. Have US immigration laws always been tolerant? Give some examples.
3. Why did the year 1965 signal a change in US immigration policy?
4. What countries have special arrangements with the US?
5. Is it possible to bar a head of state from entering the US territory?

Video 2: “How migrants are being ‘expelled’ from the U.S. border”
March 27 2021
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-migrants-are-being-expelled-from-the-u-s-border (3.35)

1. What is the problem and what has changed to make it worse?

2. Do the migrants understand what is going on and is Mexico equipped to deal with them?
3. Why does the reporter think the influx has increased so much?

Video 3: "Unless you're Native American, you came from someplace else."
Barack Obama, January 29 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXuEk_CyWs (3:04)
The speech was made at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, before the unveiling of the “Dream Act” or DAPA, voted
by the Senate but not by the House, extending DACA. Despite an executive order, it was never implemented.

1. What is it about immigration that is so divisive?

2. What does history tell us?
3. What do all newcomers face? What makes someone American?

Video 4: US immigration – Foil, Arms and Hog

Just for fun….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjab8fanzHc (0:58) But what did Martin Luther King have?

Or for more fun… Video 5: Welcome Video – Saturday Night Live

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbIXmB2ZLmA

49
Cartoons

Image 1

Bill Bramhall, US News, June 19

2020
https://www.usnews.com/
cartoons/immigration-cartoons

Image 2

Gary Varvell, Washington Times,

February 28 2021
https://www.washingtontimes.com/
cartoons/tooning-president-trump/

Grammar: Conditionals

A. Put the verbs in brackets into the correct form

First Conditional – present and future tenses

1°) If Kamala Harris …………(find) a solution to the border crisis, it ……………………….. (be) a miracle!
2°) The Republicans ………….(cheer) loudly if it all ……….(go) pear-shaped.
3°) People ………(find) other ways in if the DHS …………… (increase) border security.

Second Conditional – preterite and conditional tenses

1°) If immigrants …………………………(integrate) U.S. society better, they…………… (strengthen) the country.
2°) Immigrants in the U.S. ……………………….(can) stay longer if they ……………………………………… (meet) certain criteria.
3°) The US ………….... (have) less sports champions if they …………..….(stop) immigration.

Third Conditional – past perfect simple and conditional perfect

1°) The situation …………………………… (be) different if our elites ……………………………………….. (not, decide) to promote
sectarianism.
2° If Europe …………………… (suffer) from a series of crises in the 19th century, maybe the great waves of immigrants
………………(not, come).
3°) Children ……………………..(not, separate) from their parents if the law ……….(not, change).

50
B. Put the verbs in brackets into the correct form (future/conditional clauses).

1°) If Vito Corleone …………………….(not-emigrate) to the U.S., he …………………(not, become) the Godfather.
2°) Immigrants …………………………. (feel) better accepted if they …………………………… (help) to learn English.
3°) If Puritans ……………(persecute) in 17th century England, perhaps the U.S. ……………… (never, create).
4°) Without a green card, you …………… (have) no chance of living in the U.S. when you …… (go) there next year.
5°) The U.S. …………… (need) more immigrants when the economy …………… (recover) fully from the crisis.

Key terms

Alien – no, not the film – someone relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government

Assimilation – the absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture.
(according to the Oxford English Dictionary).

Boost the economy: Most research shows that encouraging immigration actually provides a boost to

the economy as immigrants are net contributors to the GDP. There is also evidence that they actually claim fewer
benefits and pay more tax than the native population.

DACA: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program; this is a US immigration policy, implemented by President
Obama in 2012, using an executive memorandum. It allows illegal immigrants who came to the US as children to
apply for a two-year period during which they will not be deported and can apply for a work permit. The recipients
can apply for a renewal every two years, provided that they have no criminal record.

Department of Homeland Security - The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the
U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, rather like the interior or home
ministries in other countries. It is in charge of border security, immigration and customs, but also anti-
terrorism and cyber security, along with disaster prevention and management.

Deportation: A formal process by which a foreign national can be removed from the U.S. because they have violated
an immigration law, this takes place for example after a demand for asylum has failed after a legal examination.

Expulsion: Much quicker and less complicated, this involves turning people round at the border and sending them
back where they came from. No demand for asylum is examined so no provisional detention is necessary. The U.S.
government has been using this technique at the border since the start of the Covid pandemic, citing public health
reasons (initiated by the Trump administration on March 20 2020 but not rescinded by Biden). However, this is
clearly a violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the American Convention On Human Rights and the 1952
Immigration and Nationality Act.

Green Card – a permanent resident permit. Every year there is a lottery and 55 000 foreign nationals
win green cards. Having a green card does not mean however that the holder becomes a U.S. citizen. If
a green card holder commits certain crimes, they will be deported.

Immigrant – the person // Immigrate – the verb // Immigration – the idea

Illegal immigrants: people who enter a country illegally

Influx of immigrants: this is usually used in a negative sense meaning that there are too many immigrants

Quota: The United States for example has a quota system whereby a fixed number of green cards are issued every
year.

Melting pot: a mixture of many different types of people and cultures, producing one American identity. Essentially,
this is mono-culturalism.

Salad Bowl: the different types of people and culture combine like a salad - the ingredients are juxtaposed but do
not merge into a single homogeneous culture. Each culture keeps its own distinct qualities. This is multi-culturalism.

51
 Unit 6 - Manifest Destiny and Foreign Policy
Facts

Manifest destiny www.thoughtco.com/american-manifest-destiny-3310344 By Steve Jones

The term "Manifest Destiny," which American writer John L. O'Sullivan coined in 1845, describes what
most 19th-century Americans believed was their God-given mission to expand westward, occupy a
continental nation, and extend U.S. constitutional government to unenlightened peoples. While the term
sounds like it is strictly historical, it also more subtly applies to the tendency of U.S. foreign policy to
push democratic nation-building around the globe.

- Territorial expansion
www.unitedstateswestwardexpansion.weebly.com

Watch history of US territorial expansion from 1776 to 1959: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJJGkIWpH0 (3’16)

- The Natives’ history: from repression to recognition

Adapted from https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/indigenous and www.history.com.

Prior to1492 Prior to contact from Europe, indigenous culture thrived in the Americas. Tribes
ranged from Alaska, down the Pacific Coast and across the Great Plains all the way to the
Eastern Seaboard (the Atlantic Coast).
1492 Christopher Columbus discovered America. Columbus Day has been counter-
celebrated with Indigenous People’s Day since 1992.
c. 1595 Pocahontas was born. Her tribe, the Pamunkey of Virginia, was officially recognised in
2015.
1621 First Thanksgiving between the Pilgrims and Natives.
1754-1763 The French and Indian War was the North American conflict in a larger imperial war
between Great Britain and France known as the Seven Years’ War. The dispute was over
land, the war providing Great Britain with enormous territorial gains.
1778-1820 TREATY ERA: as European nations began to colonise the Americas, they entered into
treaties with the Natives whose land they occupied. The US signed its first treaty with the
Delaware tribe. The US National Archives holds 374 of the treaties, known as the Ratified

52
 Indian Treaties.
1804-1806 Lewis & Clark expedition: Native American Sacagawea served as translator and guide
in their exploratory expedition of the West.
1820-1850 REMOVAL ERA: as the US grew in population, the federal government sought to displace
Native Americans to increase room for western expansion.
1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act under Pdt Andrew Jackson, displacing
thousands of Natives from their homes.
1838 The Trail of Tears marks the climax of the displacement policy with over 4,000 Cherokee
members dying in their march west beyond the Mississippi River.
1850-1887 RESERVATION ERA: the federal government restricted tribal members to reservations –
portions of land allocated to federally recognised tribes – in order to facilitate westward
expansion and americanise tribes. Devastating impact on Native culture felt until today.
1851 Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act, creating the Indian reservation system.
Native Americans not allowed to leave their reservations without permission.
1862 The Homestead Act accelerated settlement of US western territory by allowing any
American to put in a claim for up to 160 acres of federal land (65 hectares).
1876 Native American forces led by Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, resisting the federal
government’s efforts to confine their people to reservations, defeated General Custer’s
federal army in the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
1887-1934 ALLOTMENT AND ASSIMILATION ERA: an attempt to control and alter the customs
and practices of Native Americans.
1887 The Dawes Severalty Act ended tribal control of reservations and divided their land into
individual holdings.
1890 Wounded Knee Massacre: iconic battle on the Pine Ridge reservation where 300 Sioux
were killed by the army; generally seen as the end of 400 years of Indian wars.
1924 The Indian Citizenship Act provided the Natives dual citizenship in their tribe and with
the US.
1934-1953 SELF-GOVERNMENT ERA: federal policies toward Native Americans began to change.
1934 The Indian Reorganisation Act: a New Deal policy which gave the Natives more power
to self-govern.
1953-1968 TERMINATION ERA: a reversal in policies toward Natives
1953 The Indian Termination Act allowed to abolish tribes and relocate Natives until 1968.
1968-present SELF-DETERMINATION ERA: civil rights activism
1968 The Indian Civil Rights Act guaranteed civil rights to all American Natives.
1968 The American Indian Movement (AIM) was founded.
1969 The Proclamation of the Indians of All Tribes as part of the Red Power Movement
started a 2-year occupation of Alcatraz Island, drawing attention to the plight of the Natives
and their right to self-determination.
1973 Wounded Knee Occupation led by Sioux and the AIM over protests against civil rights
and treaties.
1978 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act allowed free practice of religion for any
Native.
1990 Congress expressed deep regret on the centennial of the Wounded Knee Massacre.
2007 The UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but the US
voted against.

Suggested essay: Why can it be said that geography makes history in the United States of America?

Reading Comprehension

The Natives and their rights

Text 1: “Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Affirms Native American Rights in

Oklahoma”, Jack Healy and Adam Liptak, The New York Times, July 9th 2020
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision
that could reshape the criminal justice system by preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that
involve Native Americans.

53
The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could
have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what the court affirmed was Indian Country. The lands
include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.

The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with
Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation
after Oklahoma became a state. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within
an Indian reservation.

The decision puts in doubt hundreds of state convictions of Native Americans and could change the handling of
prosecutions across a vast swath of the state. Lawyers were also examining whether it had broader implications for
taxing, zoning and other government functions. But many of the specific impacts will be determined by negotiations
between state and federal authorities and five Native American tribes in Oklahoma.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Westerner who has sided with tribes in previous cases and joined the court’s more liberal
members to form the majority, said that Congress had granted the Creek a reservation, and that the United States
needed to abide by its promises.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal
criminal law,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the
government to its word.”

Muscogee leaders hailed the decision as a hard-fought victory that clarified the status of their lands. The tribe said
it would work with state and federal law enforcement authorities to coordinate public safety within the reservation.
“This is a historic day,” Principal Chief David Hill said in an interview. “This is amazing. It’s never too late to make
things right.”

The ruling comes at an extraordinary time for Native Americans.

They are being ravaged by the coronavirus both in the soaring numbers of cases and deaths and the economic
distress caused by closed casinos. But at the same moment, the nationwide movement to confront systemic racism
has infused new energy and attention to generations-long fights by tribal nations and Indigenous activists over land,
treaty rights and discrimination.

In the past few weeks, tribal activists garnered international attention after they blocked the roads outside Mount
Rushmore to condemn President Trump’s visit to what they called stolen lands. They won a fight to shut down an oil
pipeline that crossed sacred ground in North Dakota. In the face of growing pressure from corporate sponsors, the
Washington Redskins of the N.F.L. recently promised to re-evaluate their team name, which activists have denounced
for years as racist.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion, tracing that history, began: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise.” The
reference is to the forced relocation of some 100,000 Native Americans from their home in the Southeast in the
1800s.

The opinion said that the promise was that Congress had guaranteed the Creek land for a permanent home in what
became Oklahoma in exchange for forcing them from their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama during the 1830s.

The court was faced with the question of whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation
after Oklahoma became a state and the tribe’s lands were fractured and sold off and its powers of self-governance
were attacked by Congress.

Some legal scholars said that Justice Gorsuch did not favor the tribes, but had simply adhered to the language of
the treaties. For generations, tribes have been asking the United States to honor the written agreements they made.
Madonna Thunder Hawk, an organizer with the Lakota People’s Law Project, said the court’s decision and a recent
federal ruling that ordered the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota had been cause for
celebration. Just not too much.

“It’s a war for us,” she said. “There are some victories, but the war continues.”

Questions: Answer the questions in your own words.

1. How does the Supreme Court ruling affect the future of Oklahoma?
2. How was Justice Gorsuch instrumental to the ruling?
3. Comment on the underlined passage of the article. Why does Madonna Thunder Hawk talk of a war?

54
 Foreign policy: what degree of engagement and why?

Text 2: Use the US Department of State website at www.state.gov to answer the questions.

Questions:
1. What are the key priorities of the State Department?
2. Does it deal only with conflicts?
3. Friend or foe: does the US have bilateral relations with Afghanistan, China, France, Iran, Israel,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and why?

America on the international stage

Text 3: “We’ve Come a Long Way Since Trump. Putin Is Still Winning”, Alexander
Vintman, The New York Times, June 16, 2021
The last time an American president held a summit with President Vladimir Putin of Russia — July 16, 2018, in
Helsinki — happened to be my first day working at the White House as National Security Council director for European
and Russian affairs. We were all responding to frantic calls demanding comments on President Donald Trump’s
bizarre assertion that he seemed to believe Mr. Putin’s (false) denials of interference in the 2016 election.

The decidedly sedate spectacle of Wednesday’s summit between President Biden and Mr. Putin in Geneva could not
be a starker contrast to the frenzied mayhem of three years ago. What I found most reassuring were Mr. Biden’s
statements that he would stand firm on defending democratic values, be critical of human rights violations, protect
the free press, and seek justice for American citizens wrongfully detained by the Russian government.

Critics will argue that little was accomplished Wednesday that would move the needle on U.S.-Russia relations. That
may be so, if progress is measured by a single meeting. In reality, diplomacy doesn’t work that way.

In the short term, we will quickly see respective ambassadors return to their posts, and strategic stability talks and
cyber working groups resume meetings. Yet real, long-term progress will be measured in terms of how intentionally
the United States responds to Russian aggression.

If, for instance, America continues to be the victim of cyberattacks, then there must be real consequences to deter
Russia’s actions.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Biden started to set the conditions to constrain Russia’s behavior. But American officials know
very well that constraining Russia’s belligerence will take far more than tough talk or unilateral U.S. actions. It will
take unwavering toughness from Mr. Biden and a solid front among allies — all united and cleareyed in the belief
that Mr. Putin is fundamentally an adversary who needs to be kept in check.

The overriding U.S. foreign policy aim must be to prevent an existential confrontation with Russia, given its growing
belligerence, propensity to employ conventional military capability, and consistent pattern of apparently
miscalculating the effects of attacks on neighbors and adversaries. U.S. policy must focus on reducing the short-
term risks of miscalculations, while simultaneously addressing the ever-increasing long-term risk of a confrontation
with Russia continuously testing U.S. resolve.

What is necessary is an approach that establishes prohibitively high costs and denies the benefits of Russia’s
belligerence. This includes symmetric and asymmetric responses to Russian cyberattacks, significantly increased
security assistance to Ukraine if Russia continues to escalate its war there and active engagement with Russian civil-
society and pro-democracy groups as Moscow continues its information war in the United States and the West.

To offset the risks of this approach, the United States will need to remain engaged with Russia in order to provide
clarity on the severe ramifications of further transgressions. This must be accompanied by the swift execution of
those promised consequences.

The Biden administration may have hoped that, by holding the summit, it would check off the undesirable obligation
of engaging with Russia and then move on to the more pressing business of an overflowing domestic agenda and
the challenges of a rising China. But as we well know, no one puts Vladimir Putin in a corner; he will continue to
demand presidential-level engagements with Mr. Biden, especially as his credibility is reliant on asserting Russian
power.

The Biden administration’s approach has to be a combination of sustained engagement, including strategic stability
talks with senior national security leaders from both countries, along with calibrated steady pressure to end Russian

55
aggression. Getting that right, without tipping into a full-blown confrontation, is the Biden administration’s Gordian
knot.

Questions: Answer the questions in your own words.

1. How does Russia challenge America?
2. How should the Biden administration frame its foreign policy with Russia?
3. Is the underlined passage a rephrasing of Theodore Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy?

Listening Comprehension

Video 1: Tribal sovereignty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Ku7EeqdR4 (2’41)
Released January 2, 2019.
Questions:
1. How many tribes are officially recognized?
2. What does tribal sovereignty imply?
3. What hardships did these tribes go through?
4. What about today’s situation?

Video 2: Culture or subculture?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE (2’00)
Released January 27, 2014.
Questions:
1. Give a list of Indian tribes. Use the subtitles if need be.
2. How many did you know before?
3. How does the document tackle Native American culture?

Video 3: Joe Biden’s Grand Strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYuQekIL_CI (1’39)
Released February 21st, 2021.
Question: What changes did Joe Biden announce in his first address before a global audience at the Munich Security
Conference on February 19th 2021 a month after his inauguration, and why?

Cartoons

Image 1: Nation building

www.picturinghistory.gc.cuny.edu/john-gast-
american-progress-1872/

Question: Using the technical elements of the

painting (frame, centre, sides, foreground &
background, corners, colours and light) and the
network of figures of speech present (allegory,
metaphor, metonymy, syllogism), show that this
work of art serves manifest destiny propaganda.

56
 Image 2: Americans, American Indians, Indigenous
people, Natives or Redskins?

www.aistm.org/cartoons10.htm

Suggested essay: Using Cartoon 2 and the following facts & figures,
how can the cartoon help understand the current situation of the
Natives?

Assimilation: The action of making or becoming like; the state of being like; similarity, resemblance, likeness.
Genocide: The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.
Identity: The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular
qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness.
Nation: A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language,
culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people.
Tribe: A group of people forming a community and claiming descent from a common ancestor.
Reservation: U.S. Originally: an area of land set apart or reserved by the government for occupation by American
Indians, esp. by those of a particular tribe or nation.
Oxford English Dictionary, OED
Bureau of Indian Affairs: its mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to
carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes and Alaska
Natives. www.bia.gov
National Congress of American Indians: founded in 1944, the oldest, largest and most representative American
Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities.
www.ncai.org

According to the 2020 Decennial Census, 1.3% of the U.S. population or 4.3 million people out of a total population
of 331m, is identified as American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), which makes them the smallest community in
the US. Alaska has the highest proportion of AIAN. Oklahoma has the largest AIAN population. The Navajo nation is
the largest tribe before – in decreasing order - the Cherokee, the Mexican American Indian, the Chippewa, the Sioux,
the Choctaw, the Apache, the Creek, the Iroquois, and the Blackfeet. Compared to the nation as a whole, AIAN have
a lower life expectancy, are more likely to die of a heart disease, have the highest youth suicide rate, are 5 times
poorer, and attend post-secondary education at a rate 5 times lower. (www.ncai.org)
About 30% of AIAN live on reservations, where living conditions were cited as “comparable to Third World” in a 2014
Gallup Independent survey. (www.nativepartnership.org)

Image 3

Kal’s cartoon, from The Economist. Released June 12th, 2021.

Question: How does the cartoon reflect the current state of tensions between America and Russia?

57
Grammar: Quantifiers
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Winston Churchill, 20 August 1940.

Nature: adjectives or adjectival phrases

Function: inform about number or quantity, therefore help answer the question ‘how much/many?’
Syntax: placed before a noun, therefore vary whether the noun is countable or uncountable

NUMBER/QUANTITY COUNTABLE NOUNS UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS

= turning a noun into plural = turning a noun into plural is
is possible/you can count impossible/you cannot count

+++++ all (the) students all (the) money

every/each student IS
++++ more more
+++ many /a lot of much / a lot of
a good many students ARE
many a student IS
+++ a great deal of students a great deal of
++ a number of students
++ several
+ some some
+ a few a little
a couple of
- few little
-- fewer less
0 no no

Please note
- de plus en plus/de moins en moins
o De plus en plus d’étudiants : more and more students
o De moins en moins d’étudiants : fewer and fewer students ; less and less students
o De moins en moins d’argent : less and less money
- every, much, many, many a
o every is always followed by a singular noun. Remember: everyone=tout le monde (avoid
all the people)
§ except in every 2 years, every 3 months…
§ every other day=un jour sur deux
o much is always followed by a singular/many is always followed by a plural
o many a little boy has wanted to become a fireman

Exercise Fill in the blanks using the following quantifiers only once:
a couple of/a great deal of/all/every/few/fewer and fewer/little/many a/much/some.

- Half way through the presidential term there remains ________________ years before the next
election.
- America being a superpower its president is confronted with ________________ foreign policy
issues.
- __________ political analysts predicted that Donald Trump would get elected.
- Not __________ Americans wanted to see Donald Trump elected.
- Not __________ American wanted to see Hillary Clinton elected.
- It may take __________ time before Americans elect a female president.
- ________________ time have we seen the same Hollywood western telling the story of the
good white American against the bad Indian.
- Under the manifest destiny doctrine, the political goal was to have ________________ Natives.
- It takes __________ patience to secure an international agreement.
- In difficult negotiations there is __________ room left for fun.

58
Key Terms
Arms race: competition for strongest military capacity
To back: to support
Balance of power: equilibrium of power between nations
Big Stick policy: Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy, illustrated by an African proverb “Speak softly
and carry a big stick; you will go far.”
Blockade: the isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbour by hostile ships or forces in order to prevent
the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce
Civilian: not a member of the military
Containment: restricting spread of something
Counterpart: one that has the same functions as another
Coup d’état: when a government is overthrown/toppled illegally or by force
Crisis: irregular plural, crises
Department of State (US) /Foreign Office (UK): the federal department in the US that sets and
maintains foreign policies. Visit www.state.gov, or www.gov.uk.
To deter: to prevent or discourage from acting
Nuclear deterrence: the military doctrine that an enemy will be deterred from using nuclear weapons
as long as he can be destroyed as a consequence
Escalation: the act of increasing; contrary: de-escalation
To exert power: to exercise power
Foreign affairs: political field pertaining to/relating to/concerning international relations and national
interests in foreign countries
Foreign/domestic policy: the diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations; as
opposed to the administrative decisions related to all issues and activity within a nation’s borders
(war) Hawks & Doves: conventional image used to oppose those in favour of a military intervention
to those who advocate a peaceful settlement of a conflict
Grand strategy: a term of art from academia referring to the collection of plans and policies that
comprise the state’s deliberate effort to harness political, military, diplomatic, and economic tools
together to advance that state’s national interest (like, for example, containment during the Cold War)
Hyperpower: a state that is vastly stronger than its potential rivals, and so dominates world affairs
Insurgents: rebels
Jacksonianism: foreign policy tradition that is inward looking, shuns international engagement, but
prepares to aggressively defend US national security if the country is threatened
Leading from behind: coined by a White House official to describe Pdt Obama’s actions in Lybia, marked
by hesitation, delay and indecision
Megaphone diplomacy: when negotiations are held through press releases and announcements,
aiming to force the other party into adopting a desired position
(As the saying goes) ‘Might (= power) is right’: the belief that you can do what you want because
you are the most powerful person or country
Mighty: strong, powerful
Monroe Doctrine: a cornerstone of US foreign policy as stated by Pdt James Monroe in 1823, that
opposes the influence or interference of outside powers in the Americas
Non-kinetic warfare (NKW): when war does not involve active (kinetic) military action, e.g.
cyberattacks
Plot: conspiracy
Hard/Soft power: the ability to achieve one’s goals by/without military force; soft power was first
coined by Harvard Professor Joseph Nye in 1990
Sharp power: manipulation technique used by authoritarian regimes like China or Russia; coined by the
National Endowment for Democracy in 2017
Smart power: combination of hard and soft power
Quagmire: a situation from which extrication is very difficult, e.g. the Vietnam War
To retaliate: to counterattack
The Talion law: « An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. »
Retrenchment: strategy designed to reduce a country’s international and military costs and
commitments.
Rogue (= dishonest) state: a state whose foreign policy poses a threat to neighbouring or other states,
through its aggressive intent, build-up of weapons (particularly WMD), or association with terrorism
ROW: Rest of the World; row pronounced /rəʊ/ means quarrel

59
Secretary of State (US)/Foreign Secretary (UK): the one in charge of foreign affairs at the head of
the Department of State/Foreign Office
To settle a conflict: to conclude a dispute
To sit at the table of negotiations: to come together/to convene in order to come to an agreement
e.g. a peace treaty
Showdown: confrontation
Stalemate: deadlock
To wage war: to engage in a conflict
Warfare: the waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict
Asymmetrical war: war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or
whose strategy or tactics differ significantly
Proxy war: a war that results when opposing powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each
other directly
Warmonger/peacemaker: somebody who advocates war/peace
Wilsonianism: the conviction that US foreign policy should be the promotion of democracy around the
world as stated by Pdt Woodrow Wilson’s in his 1918 Fourteen Points Speech
To withdraw (pull out) troops: to retreat
WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Unipolar/bipolar/multipolar world: distribution of power in which one/two/several state(s)
exercise(s) most of the cultural, economic, and military influence

Suggested essay: Using the terms above, how would you describe America’s current foreign policy?

Going Further
Read
Ce qui est arrivé à Wounded Knee : L’enquête inédite sur le dernier massacre des Indiens, Laurent
OLIVIER, 2021. Casts light on the controversial responsibility of the Sioux or the army in that landmark
massacre.
US Foreign Policy, Michael COX & Doug STOKES, 2018. A reference textbook.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, Dee BROWN, 1970. A classic.
Foreign Affairs. Founded in 1922, leading magazine in American foreign policy and global affairs,
published every 2 months by the Council on Foreign Relations, accessible on Factiva via the ENT or via
individual subscription at www.foreignaffairs.com. See also www.cfr.org, the Council on Foreign Relations
website.
Foreign Policy. Founded in 1970, award-winning bi-monthly publication available in print and at
www.foreignpolicy.com.

Watch (just a short list)

Western films. More often than not, a conventional demonisation of the savage Indian against the white
man.
Dancing with Wolves, by K. Costner, 1990. The turning point in Hollywood’s vision of the American Indian.
Far and Away, by Ron Howard, 1992. Illustrates the land run of 1893 as a further consequence of the
1862 Homestead Act which deprived the Natives from their land.
Hostiles, by Scott Cooper, 2018. A cathartic exploration of the American west.
Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, by Stanley Kubrick, 1964. A
classic of Cold War fiction.
Apocalypse Now, by Francis Ford Coppola, 1979. A classic about the Vietnam War.
Platoon, by Oliver Stone, 1986. Another classic about the Vietnam war.
The Good Shepherd, by Robert De Niro, 2006. About the CIA.
Charlie Wilson’s War, by Mike Nichols, 2007. A reality-based Cold War film.
Argo, by Ben Affleck, 2012. About the 1979 hostage crisis at the US embassy in Tehran.
Dirty Wars, by Richard Rowley, 2013. Documentary film about the War on Terror.
Narcos, on Netflix, 2015-2017. About the fight against drug lord Pablo Escobar from the point of view of
an American Drug Enforcement Administration agent.
Homeland, on Netflix, 2011-2020. About the CIA and the war against terrorism.

Visit
The National Museum of the American Indian, in New York and/or Washington, D. C.
https://americanindian.si.edu

60
 Unit 7: Civil Rights
(Focusing on Race Relations and LGBTQ Rights)
Facts

1. Definitions
A mention of Civil Rights in the U.S. usually calls to mind various events and key figures in the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, the notion of civil rights is one that applies to many more contexts and
categories of people. It is also often used interchangeably with civil liberties. A few definitions are therefore in order,
starting with dictionary definitions of civil rights:
• “the nonpolitical rights of a citizen, especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by
the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by Acts of Congress” (Merriam-Webster)
• “the rights that every person in a society has, for example to be treated equally, to be able to vote, work,
etc. whatever their sex, race or religion” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)
• “the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law, as in the U.S.” (Collins
English Dictionary)
• “A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action
for injury.” (Legal Information Institute)

The following paragraph from Encyclopedia Britannica explains the distinction between civil rights and civil
liberties:
“Civil rights are an essential component of democracy; when individuals are being denied opportunities to
participate in political society, they are being denied their civil rights. In contrast to civil liberties, which are
freedoms that are secured by placing restraints on government, civil rights are secured by positive
government action, often in the form of legislation. Civil rights laws attempt to guarantee full and equal
citizenship for people who have traditionally been discriminated against on the basis of some group
characteristic. When the enforcement of civil rights is found by many to be inadequate, a civil rights
movement may emerge in order to call for equal application of the laws without discrimination.”

As the Encyclopedia Britannica definition indicates, when guarantees of equal citizenship are lacking or when
civil rights are not equally or properly enforced, civil rights movements and legislation often expand. This has been
the case in the U.S. for various groups with a history of being discriminated against. This particular unit mainly
focuses on racial/ethnic minority groups and the LGBTQ community throughout various jurisdictions. That being
understood, civil rights campaigns have historically existed to advocate for the rights of other groups such as women,
the disabled, immigrants and other minorities. Moreover, many of the current movements overlap and adopt an
intersectional approach.

2. Statistics
One of the ways of measuring racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is to focus on census figures. The last census
took place in 2020 but the results are not available yet. There has been criticism of the way race is defined in the
census, which can lead to confusion and misleading returns. In 2010, people could choose to indicate their “race or
Hispanic origin”, the five races being white, black or African-American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. “Hispanic” is not considered to be a race but an ethnicity; nevertheless, a
lot of respondents who identify as Hispanic ticked the “Other race” box or “two or more races”.2

As of the last American

Community Survey in 20193,
here is the racial and ethnic
composition of the U.S.
population:

2
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn125.html
3
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?q=United%20States&g=0100000US

61
 While the census does not collect information on sexual orientation or gender identity, polls and academic
research aim at providing resources for laws, policies, and judicial decisions that could affect the LGBTQ population.
As of 2020, around 5.6% of the American population identify as LGBTQ4 and as the civil rights of these populations
continue to gain legal recognition, various organizations document statistics and legislative changes.5

3. Basic Milestones
It is impossible to sum up various rights movements in a few sentences. This section therefore only refers to
key concepts or events. There are many angles from which to look at any movement for civil rights: political,
economic, historical, cultural, linguistic, geographic etc. So as to apprehend the complexity of the world, scholars
have coined the term intersectionality6,which translates to the overlapping categories of oppression fought against
by civil rights groups, such as race, nationality or immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, sex or gender
identity to name a few.

When it comes to race relations in the U.S., the focus is often on black-white relations over the centuries7: from
slavery to the Civil War and Reconstruction, from Jim Crow and segregation to the Civil Rights Movement and
from the Civil Rights era to the current movements (Color of Change, Black Lives Matter, M4BL) challenging
systemic racism8, police brutality and mass incarceration among other issues.
In order to study the movement(s) for LGBTQ rights in the U.S., it is historically relevant to read about the rise
of gay and lesbian associations from the mid-1920s to the 1950s, the repercussions of the raid on the Stonewall Inn
in New York in 1969 and the first Pride parade in 1970, the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental
disorders, the stigma against homosexuals during the emergence of AIDS in the 1980s, the fight for the repeal of
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the inclusion of transgender service members in the Army, as well as advocacy for state
legislatures and Congress to pass hate crime and anti-discrimination laws, the movement for the formal recognition
and eventual legalization of same-sex marriage, as well as the current push for transgender rights.

4
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx -
Interesting state-by-state date can be found here: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/us-state-data/ and
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#density
5
ACLU Legistation LGBT Rights Across the Country. https://www.aclu.org/legislation-affecting-lgbt-rights-across-country.
6
First popularized in 1989 by American lawyer and UCLA School of Law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw as applied to race and gender studies
7
more resources at https://www.ushistory.org/us/57f.asp
8
President Johnson’s administration assembled a commission responsible for a landmark report about the causes of racial unrest in the late 1960s.
It concluded that institutions and society had led to these riots since it had created, maintained and condoned segregation, racism and cycles of
poverty. (The Kerner Report. (2016). United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, p. 209)

62
Exercise: LGBTQ+ Rights Quiz
Circle the correct answer(s) to the following questions to recap LGBTQ rights milestones.

1. Which New York bar did the police raid on June 28, 1969?
a. The Stonehenge Inn b. The Stonemason Inn
c. The Stonewall Inn d. The Stonehead Inn

2. What state was the first to allow same-sex marriage?

a. Vermont b. Massachusetts
c. Hawaii d. Connecticut

3. What year did the first Pride parade take place?

a. 1975 b. 1970
c. 1983 d. 1985

4. How did same-sex marriage become legal throughout the U.S.?

a. Through an Act of Congress b. All 50 states and D.C. passed bills to
allow it
c. The Supreme Court recognized it as a d. Through an amendment to the U.S.
constitutional right Constitution

5. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on:
a. sex b. sexual orientation
c. gender identity d. all of the above

6. Under what President was Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed?

a. President Barack Obama b. President George H.W. Bush
c. President George W. Bush d. President Bill Clinton

7. How many states have anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT communities?

a. 0 b. 42
c. 27 d. 22

8. When was homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?
a. 1968 b. 1973
c. 1985 d. 1992

9. How many LGBTQ Representatives and Senators are there in the current Congress?
a. 0 b. 17
c. 11 d. 28

10. What state was the first to recognize a third gender: nonbinary?
a. California b. New York
c. Ohio d. Oregon

Reading Comprehension
Text 1
“Opinion: This is what it took for Derek Chauvin to be convicted”
Radley Balko, The Washington Post, April 21, 2021
“Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical
distress,” read the Minneapolis Police Department statement sent shortly after George Floyd’s death. “Officers called
for an ambulance. He was transported to [a hospital] by ambulance where he died a short time later. At no time
were any weapons used by anyone involved in this incident.”
If it weren’t for the video shot by then-17-year-old Darnella Frazier on her phone, that’s likely all that would have
been released about the death of George Floyd. He’d have been a blip: a guy accused of passing a fake $20 bill who
resisted arrest, suffered “medical distress” and died. Yes, the officers wore body cameras. But under state law, only
the subjects of a video, their families or their attorneys can request footage. Perhaps Floyd’s family would have
requested it. But the body camera footage isn’t nearly as compelling. It seems likely that without that particular
video, from that angle, there would never have been protests, public outrage and state action.

63
Under our criminal justice system, it took a lot to convict a police officer of murder for an on-the-job death — there
have been fewer than 10 such convictions since 2005. It took that video, certainly, which was so gut-wrenching and
incontrovertible. It took an especially unsympathetic officer, one who had been the subject of numerous prior
complaints, who had been accused of kneeling on the necks of other suspects, and whose statements and body
language depicted an appalling, callous indifference to the pleas of the man he was suffocating.
It probably took the landmark election of Keith Ellison, a fairly left-of-center attorney general, who in 2018 became
the first Black person elected to any statewide office in Minnesota. Ellison’s office took over the prosecution of Derek
Chauvin. And while Ellison would perhaps have brought charges against Chauvin in any context, it also seems clear
that widespread protests have provided prosecutors with more political cover to bring charges in these cases. Since
2015, the number of officers charged each year for on-duty killings has increased significantly. That’s almost
certainly because the 2014 Ferguson protests and the Black Lives Matter movement have pressured public officials
to hold rogue officers more accountable.
It probably also took a remarkably diverse jury. Hennepin County is 74 percent White, and jury pools typically
underrepresent racial minorities. Defying the odds, half of Chauvin’s jury was non-White or multiracial. Much as we’d
like to think otherwise, that likely mattered.
It took the appointment of a reform-minded police chief at the Minneapolis Police Department, Medaria Arradondo,
who made the department more accountable and transparent, and who implemented policies that would later allow
him and other department officials to testify that Chauvin, without question, had violated those policies. Without
that testimony, without the unanimity from Minneapolis Police Department trainers and leadership that Chauvin had
violated policy, it seems unlikely he would have been convicted. (It’s also worth noting that early in his career,
Arradondo successfully sued the department for racial discrimination. One of the named defendants was president
of the city’s police union at the time of Floyd’s death.)
Ironically, it may have also taken a previous incident in which a Black police officer killed an unarmed White woman.
Former officer Mohamed Noor, a Somali immigrant, was convicted of murder in 2019 for shooting and killing Justine
Ruszczyk in 2017. The incident led to the ouster of the city’s previous police chief and the appointment of Arradondo.
It’s also at least arguable that Noor’s prosecution provided more political cover to prosecute Chauvin.
It took a relatively unpersuasive use-of-force expert from the defense, one who also testified in one of the few other
murder convictions of a police officer — Jason Van Dyke, the officer who shot and killed Laquan McDonald in Chicago.
Barry Brodd’s testimony was so ineffective, even reliable defenders of law enforcement were skeptical.
What happened in Minneapolis on Tuesday isn’t typical. Even when officers are charged, which is rare, only about
45 percent are convicted, vs. nearly 70 percent in other cases. Among cases that go to trial, more than half are
acquitted. For comparison, a 2009 study of the largest urban counties found that only about 1 percent of trials
overall resulted in an acquittal. Juries simply don’t like to convict police officers.
Big-city police chiefs tend to be reform-minded, but 90 percent of the police departments in the United States have
50 officers or less, and nearly half have fewer than 10. And while 42 percent of the largest police departments are
led by Black chiefs, nationally, it’s just 4 percent. As of 2017, about 95 percent of elected prosecutors were White.
In most places, it’s much more politically risky for a prosecutor to bring charges against a police officer.
Chauvin’s conviction struck a blow for justice, but this isn’t how the system operates most of the time. It’s how the
system operated once, under immense public scrutiny and extremely favorable conditions, with incredibly damning
evidence. That’s why the reforms sparked by Floyd’s death are so important, and ought to be only the beginning. A
system that requires so much merely to hold one of its own to account is a system badly in need of repair.

Vocabulary:
Find in the text the words corresponding to the definitions below:
Temporary or insignificant Causing mental or emotional Unfeeling, hard-hearted: Expulsion, act of forcing out:
phenomenon: anguish:
Forceful, powerful: Not open to question, Dishonest, unprincipled: Close, careful examination:
undisputable:

Questions:
1. Look up the meaning of an op-ed. What does it entail for this article?
2. What is the main point made by Radley Balko in this opinion piece? What statistics does he provide to back it?
3. Make a list of what Balko considers were “extremely favorable conditions” and “incredibly damning
evidence” in this case.
4. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Text 2
“Opinion: Confederate names are coming down, but San Francisco is now
taking on … Abe Lincoln?” Charles Lane, The Washington Post, February 2, 2021
Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, cities and towns are belatedly but necessarily purging public spaces
of the names and images of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the soldiers who served his treasonous, pro-
slavery cause.

64
Meanwhile, San Francisco’s school board has voted to start replacing the names of the Union’s president, Abraham
Lincoln, and Union officers such as James Garfield and William McKinley (also former presidents) from public schools,
ostensibly for the same cause of historical truth, equity and justice.
There has been a lot going on — a pandemic, right-wing violence — much of it no doubt more immediately concerning
than the latest burst of Left Coast ideological excess.
Still, it’s worth focusing for a moment on this particular absurdity, which implies moral equivalence between those
who led the Confederacy and those who crushed it, and why it is so culturally pernicious.
The sheer extremism cannot be overstated. On Jan. 27, the board voted 6 to 1 to rename 44 schools that currently
honor those “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting
societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of
those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Not only is Lincoln to be scoured from an 80-year-old high school because, in 1862, he presided over the hangings
of 38 rebellious Native Americans in Minnesota. Also the third president, Thomas Jefferson — who articulated the
right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” in the first place — failed to pass muster, because of his slaveholding.
Who could pass the board’s test? Barack Obama’s evolution on gay marriage resembles Lincoln’s own two-steps
forward, one-step back progress on slavery and race. Obama asserted religious reservations at one point and as late
as 2012 gently rebuked his vice president, Joe Biden, for committing their ticket to the idea earlier than Obama
deemed politically wise.
Did that “significantly diminish opportunities”? In 2019, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hailed “the bold and visionary
leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” and promised to model a Sanders presidency on FDR’s. According
to the panel advising the school board, though, Sanders’s hero is unworthy of a school naming, in part because of
his wartime internment of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent.
“Change is a good thing,” board member Matt Alexander breezily observed, apropos his vote for the board’s plan —
and, indeed, there’s a case for some updating of San Francisco’s school names to account for new norms and new heroes. (…)
Nor should students be taught to honor Jefferson and FDR without also comprehending the dark sides of their legacies.
But Lincoln? Far from pursuing Native Americans in the Minnesota uprising, he took huge political risks to prevent
federal troops from hanging many more of them (…). Yes, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation as a war-winning
measure as much as a liberationist one; he harbored anti-Black sentiments, which is why Frederick Douglass
regarded him with mixed feelings.
Even Douglass, however, ultimately reached a positive verdict on Lincoln’s public acts and private attitudes, calling
him “one of the very few Americans, who could entertain a negro and converse with him without in anywise reminding
him of the unpopularity of his color.” (…)
Lincoln’s greatest contribution to American political culture was his oratory, including his temperate plea to rebuild
after the Civil War “with malice toward none; with charity for all.”
Lincoln spoke from a deep sense that all Americans, himself included, bore responsibility for the national sins that
had led to war, because evil and error, alas, are humanity’s common lot.
The spirit behind the San Francisco decree is different — less humble, more Jacobin. It lacks self-awareness, too.
By stigmatizing the nation’s greatest president, the school board would vindicate its worst: In 2017, Donald Trump
predicted that taking down Confederate monuments would lead to similar moves against George Washington, and
sure enough, the board in San Francisco has voted his name off a school, too.
Future generations may judge them harshly for that.

Vocabulary:
Find in the text the words corresponding to the definitions below:
Later than expected, too Remove, cleanse, purge: Criticize sharply: Entertain or hold a specific
late, overdue: thought or feeling:

Exaggerate: Meet a required standard: Greet with enthusiastic Prove the value/validity of,
approval, salute, acclaim: provide justification for:

Questions:
1. What decision by the San Francisco school board does the article focus on? In what general context was
that decision made?
2. Why does Lane think this decision is extreme and absurd?
3. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Text 3
“Republican State Lawmakers Push Wave of Bills Targeting Transgender
Youth” Claire Hansen, U.S. News and World Report, April 9, 2021
At least 28 state legislatures are weighing measures that would bar transgender youth from participating in sports
or receiving medical treatment. Some have already been passed.

65
Arkansas this week became the first state in the nation to bar physicians from providing gender-affirming treatment
to transgender minors after the GOP-controlled state legislature overrode Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson's veto of
the measure, which he called "extreme," "overbroad" and "a product of the cultural war in America."
The measure – now a law – is just one of a record number of bills introduced by Republican state lawmakers this
year targeting transgender people as the GOP seizes on transgender rights as a cultural wedge issue.
At least 28 state legislatures are currently weighing or have already passed anti-transgender measures, the majority
of which target the rights of transgender and nonbinary children and teens. The influx of anti-transgender state bills
comes as the Biden administration has moved to expand LGBT rights.
The state measures largely fall into two buckets. Many of the bills aim to bar transgender girls from participating in
women's athletics as GOP politicians angle to brand themselves as the defenders of women's sports. Bills in three
states – Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas – have already passed into law, while more than two dozen state
legislatures are weighing the legislation.
More than a dozen other measures seek to bar transgender children from gender-affirming care and in some cases
criminalize the treatments, according to a tracker of anti-LGBT bills from the American Civil Liberties Union.
Gender-affirming treatments can aid transgender people in changing their physical characteristics to align more
closely with their gender identity – like redistributing body fat, increasing or decreasing body hair growth or
deepening the voice. The treatments may include puberty blockers for younger people as well as hormone therapy
or surgery, and are linked to a significant reduction in mental health issues among transgender people. Major medical
organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Medical Association and others support gender-affirming care for transgender youth and adults.
The GOP focus on transgender-related issues is not new. State lawmakers across the country introduced a bevy of
so-called "bathroom bills" from roughly 2016 to 2018, many modeled after North Carolina's notorious House Bill 2
that required transgender people to use the public bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that aligned with the
sex on their birth certificates and not with their gender identity. (The key provisions of the law were eventually
nullified, but not before North Carolina lost millions after corporate entities moved events and business out of the
state.)
North Carolina is also the location of the latest and perhaps most extreme anti-transgender bills of the current wave.
Republicans state lawmakers this week introduced a measure that would criminalize the provision of gender-
affirming treatments including surgery, hormone treatments or puberty blockers to anyone under the age of 21,
putting physicians at risk of losing their medical license and being fined if they did so.
The North Carolina measure also would compel state employees to immediately inform a minor's parents if they
display "gender nonconformity," or "otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with
[their] sex" – a broad directive that could give the state power to determine and police cultural gender norms and
presentation.
The slate of measures targeting transgender health care are predicated on the belief of the bills' supporters that the
risks of gender-affirming treatments for minors outweigh the benefits.
Supporters of sports-related measures argue that allowing transgender girls to compete in women's athletics creates
an unfair playing field. Advocates rebuff that assertion.
Objections from LGBT advocates, transgender people, medical groups and others are manyfold. Transgender youth
experience mental health issues, substance abuse and bullying at far greater levels than cisgender kids, according
to research by the CDC. And more than half of transgender or nonbinary youth seriously considered suicide in the
last year, according to a 2020 survey conducted by The Trevor Project, a crisis intervention and suicide prevention
organization for LGBT youth. "It is not extreme or sensational to say that this group of young people, who already
experience disproportionate rates of violence and suicide attempts, would be put at significantly increased risk of
self-harm because of legislation like [Arkansas] HB 1570 pushing them farther to the margins of society," Sam
Brinton, Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs for The Trevor Project, said in a statement after the
passage of the most recent Arkansas measure. (…)
The American Medical Association views the measures "as a dangerous legislative intrusion into the practice of
medicine," it said in a statement. In a letter to Missouri lawmakers, the organization said that measures barring
minors from gender-affirming care "force physicians to disregard their oaths to act in the best interest of their
patients and insert the government into clinical decision-making."
Forbidding kids from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity would further marginalize
transgender youth and could increase mental health problems and bullying, advocates and medical groups say.
"Forcing transgender children to play on teams according to their sex assigned at birth, rather than the gender they
live in, also puts their physical and mental health at risk," the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement.
Advocates also worry that provisions like those included in the newly-introduced North Carolina measure could out
transgender youth to their families without their consent – an event that may not only be emotionally damaging but
physically dangerous.
There are legal concerns as well. Advocates argue that the measures are blatantly discriminatory because they target
transgender people specifically because of their gender identity. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has
already pledged to sue over the state's new law.
Idaho became the first state last year to bar transgender and nonbinary youth from participating in sports leagues
at odds with their gender identity. A federal judge in August blocked that law while the legal battle continued.
Bills targeting transgender people are actively moving through several state legislatures. West Virginia is on the
verge of becoming the latest state to restrict transgender people's participation in sport after the state senate on
Thursday passed a measure in a narrow vote.

66
Alabama is also poised to pass into law both a bill restricting athletic participation and a measure that would make
it a felony for medical professionals to provide gender-affirming care to anyone under the age of 19.

Questions:
1. What law was just passed in Arkansas? What other similar laws have been passed or are being debated?
What arguments are given in favor of such laws?
2. Why does Claire Hansen think the proposed North Carolina bill goes much further than the others?
3. What concerns have been raised about these new bills/laws?
4. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Listening Comprehension
Audio 1: “How Using Videos at Chauvin Trial And Others Impacts Criminal
Justice”, NPR, May 7, 2021
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/07/994507257/how-using-videos-at-chauvin-trial-and-others-impacts-criminal-justice

Questions:
1. What has a federal grand jury just decided?
2. What issue does the report focus on and what examples does Corley give?
3. Do all videos make it into the courtroom? What effect can they have?
4. What does Keith Ellison say is the risk with using videos?
5. Who is Sharon Fairley and what use does she say such videos can have?
6. What changes have happened in New York?
7. What problem does Michael White identify with this focus on body-worn cameras?
8. Does the fact that officers wear bodycams lead to fewer incidents?
9. What use of the footage does the host suggest? Does Corley think police do that?

Audio 2: “U.S. Will Protect Gay and Transgender People Against Discrimination
in Health Care”, NPR, May 10, 2021
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995418963/u-s-will-protect-gay-and-transgender-people-against-discrimination-in-health-car
Questions:
1. What policy has the Biden Administration just announced?
2. What had the policy been before this announcement?
3. What Supreme Court decision contributed to the Administration’s decision?
4. Is the new policy a rule yet?
5. Which other departments have announced similar policies?
6. How can the rule be used in practice?
7. How might the new policy intersect with some of the laws being passed at state level?
8. What have the reactions to the policy announcement been?

Video 1: Police Reform

A. “Police reform one year after George Floyd”, WGN News, May 26, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy7LShGgwdw

Questions:
1. What types of reforms have been adopted since George Floyd’s death?
2. What legislation was adopted in Illinois and why are there “roadblocks” in Chicago?
3. What do Aldermen Taylor and Sawyer disagree on when it comes to reform?
4. What reforms has the Chicago Police Department had to implement?
5. What explanation is being suggested for the perceived inaction in Chicago?
6. Why do some oppose or question the proposed reforms?
7. What is happening at the federal level?

B. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act

• “What is the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act? Break down the bill and
opposition”, PBS NewsHour, PBS, April 22, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqNUbWUBpQ
• “House Passes National Police Reform Bill Eliminating Qualified Immunity for
Law Enforcement”, NBC10 Philadelphia, March 5, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VytsqyjCaKo

67
Watch the two videos and answer the following questions:
1. What does the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act provide for? What changes could it help achieve?
2. What stage of legislative proceedings is the bill at?
3. What seems to be the stumbling block in the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans?

Video 2: “The Massacre of Tulsa’s “Black Wall Street””, Vox, February 27, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ItsPBTFO0

Questions:
1. What was “Black Wall Street”?
2. What happened in 1921, and what triggered those events?
3. Why does the video mention a coverup? What evidence is key today?
4. What issue still “haunts” Tulsa today?
5. What action did the city take in 1997?
6. What is the current mayor’s position?

Video 3: “What is Critical Race Theory – Education Lab”, AL.com, June 18, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr9JJbCc44o
Questions:
1. Why is “critical race theory” being brought up often lately?
2. How does the video define critical race theory?
3. How have other scholars expanded upon it?
4. What does the video say it is not?
5. To what extent is it taught/present in Alabama schools?
6. Why have Republican lawmakers been introducing bills to ban critical race theory in schools?

Video 4: “Atlanta Spa Shootings Spotlight Spike In Violence Against Asian

Americans”, Sunday Focus, TODAY, March 21, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOcO4yqiGMA
Questions:
1. Who were the victims in the Atlanta shootings?
2. How are the shootings seen as part of a broader trend?
3. What does Judy Chu think?
4. Why are scholars and experts warning against oversimplifying the shooter’s intent?
5. What action could be taken at federal and/or state level?

Video 5: “Civil rights vs. religious freedom: Debate over the Equality Act”,
WNCT-TV 9 On Your Side, February 26, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50dgR6XLOCs
Questions:
1. How did the U.S. House of Representatives vote on the Equality Act?
2. What concern is raised by about the act?
3. How do supporters react to that concern?
4. What protections would the Equality Act provide at state and federal level?

Video 6: “Record number of bills look to restrict trans rights in the U.S.”, PBS
NewsHour, PBS, March 31, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjQkxl7bclI

Questions:
1. What measures have been adopted in Arkansans and South Dakota? How many similar bills are being
considered?
2. What two types of bills does Kate Sosin say are being considered?
3. What does Sosin think is the context for this new wave of legislation?
4. Are there specific situations that sparked the push for new legislation?
5. How does Sosin argue these new bills are part of a concerted effort?

68
Cartoons

69
Grammar: The Passive Voice (L’anglais de A à Z, Units 283-287)
Structure: (conjugated) + past participle

A. Transform the following sentences using the passive voice.

1. By 1800, slave traders had transported 10 to 15 million blacks as slaves to the Americas, representing
perhaps one-third of those they had seized in Africa. (Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Harriet Tubman conducted the Underground Railroad. She escorted more than 300 slaves to freedom thanks
to this network from the early to the mid nineteenth century.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. In 2015, the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in the landmark Obergefell v.
Hodges decision.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. They are making demands for reparations “for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow, 60 years of
separate but equal, 35 years of state-sanctioned redlining.”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

B. Use the verb in brackets and complete the sentences in the passive voice.

1. It ………………… (say) that American voters would be more willing to elect a gay president than a female
president.
2. Bans on transgender athletes participating in women’s sports ………………………. (discuss) in various states at
the moment.
3. Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man ………………………….. (publish) in 1952 and ……………………………………. (immediately
hail) as a masterpiece. In it, unparalleled truths ………………. (tell) about the nature of bigotry and its effects
on the minds of both victims and perpetrators.
4. According to popular view, if the Stonewall raid had not happened, the gays rights movement
……………………………………….. (recognize) in a broader culture.
5. “Where justice ……………………… (deny), where poverty ………………. (enforce), where ignorance prevails, and
where any class ………………. (make) to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and
degrade them, neither persons, nor property will be safe.” (Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of
Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, 1845)

Key Terms
These are terms you can encounter when reading about civil rights issues in the U.S.

Affirmative action: A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination between applicants, remedy
the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking
admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. It can be targeted to ethnic minorities
or to other groups like women or war veterans. (Civil liberties.org)
Black Lives Matter (BLM): an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community,
that campaigns against violence and systemic racism toward black people. BLM regularly holds protests against
police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United
States criminal justice system.
Civil Liberties: fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech or religion, especially as protected from
excessive governmental intrusion by constitutional guarantees. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Civil Rights: rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and
privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and subsequent Acts of Congress.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Cisgender: a gender identity, or performance in a gender role, that society deems to match the person’s assigned
sex at birth. (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Deadname: refer to a transgender person by the name and/or pronouns they used before transitioning to the
gender they currently identify as. (Fairlex Dictionary of Idioms)

70
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: policy adopted during the Clinton presidency which forbade gays, lesbians and bisexuals from
openly serving in the military. It was repealed in 2011.
Driving While Black (or brown): a form of racial profiling. It is a play on the real offense “driving while
intoxicated”. The irony of the phrase suggests that being black (or brown) is a crime.
Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (Merriam-Webster). /
A social construct used to classify a person as a man, woman or some other identity. (LGBTQIA Resource Center
Glossary, UC Davis)
Gender Identity: a sense of one’s self as trans*, genderqueer, woman, man, or some other identity, which may or
may not correspond with the sex or gender one is assigned at birth. (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Gender nonconforming (or Gender Non(-)Conforming): person who does not subscribe to gender expressions
or roles expected of them by society. (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Implicit Bias: term referring to relatively unconscious and relatively automatic features of prejudiced judgment and
social behavior. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Implicit bias is an unconscious, unintentional bias. Unlike
explicit bias, which an individual is conscious and knowledgeable of, implicit bias exists when an individual does not
have direct control or understanding of their perceptions and motivations. (Cornell University Law School)
Intersectionality: a framework for understanding how multiple categories of identity (such as race, gender and
class) interact in ways that create complex systems of oppression and power. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Jim Crow laws: adopted by States in the South of the US after 1876. They claimed to defend a “separate but
equal status” for black people and imposed segregation in schools, public places, public transport, restrooms…for
black and white citizens.
LGBTQQIA+: abbreviation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex and Asexual/Allies.
“+” stands for what’s not included in the acronym such as Transsexual, Pansexual and 2-Spirit among others.
Lynching: Violent punishment or execution, without due process, for real or alleged crimes. (West’s Encyclopedia of American
Law) / put to death (often by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Miscegenation: interbreeding between members of different races.
Nonbinary (or non(-)binary): relating to a person who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that is neither
entirely male or entirely female (Merriam-Webster)
Queer: One definition of queer is abnormal or strange. Historically, queer has been used as an epithet/slur against
people whose gender, gender expression and/or sexuality do not conform to dominant expectations. Some people
have reclaimed the word queer and self identify as such. For some, this reclamation is a celebration of not fitting
into norms/being “abnormal.” (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Race relations: forms of behavior which arise from the contacts and resulting interaction of people with varied
physical and cultural characteristics. As defined by Robert E. Park (1939), the concept refers to all relationships
which are capable of producing race conflict and race consciousness and which determine the relative status of
groups in the community. The term is variously employed to cover forms of intergroup, interethnic, and majority-
minority relationships. (encyclopedia.com)
Racial profiling: discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime
based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. (ACLU)
Reconstruction: In U.S. history, the period (1865–77) that followed the American Civil War and during which attempts were
made to redress the inequities of slavery and its political, social, and economic legacy and to solve the problems arising from the
readmission to the Union of the 11 states that had seceded at or before the outbreak of war. (Britannica.com) “A significant number
of African Americans held public office, including two U.S. senators and 20 members of the House, between 1870 and 1900. But
when the federal government withdrew its support for Reconstruction in the late 1800s, the gains made by African Americans were
quickly stripped away and replaced by a patchwork system of legal segregation (including, in some instances, legal segregation of
Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans as well).” (Civilrights.org)
Sex: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished
respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures (Merriam-
Webster) / a medically constructed categorization. Sex is often assigned based on the appearance of the genitalia,
either in ultrasound or at birth. (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Sexuality: quality of being sexual / a manner of being sexual or engaging in sexual activity / sexual activity
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Sexual Orientation: enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction or non-attraction to other
people. (LGBTQIA Resource Center Glossary, UC Davis)
Systemic (or Institutional) Racism: Racial discrimination that has become established as normal behavior within a society or
organization. (Oxford Living Dictionaries) Institutional racism refers to the policies and practices within and across institutions that,
intentionally or not, produce outcomes that chronically favor, or put a racial group at a disadvantage. Poignant examples of
institutional racism can be found in school disciplinary policies in which students of color are punished at much higher rates that
their white counterparts, in the criminal justice system, and within many employment sectors in which day-to-day operations, as
well as hiring and firing practices can significantly disadvantage workers of color. (The Aspen Institute)
Transgender: relating to a person whose gender identity [and/or expression] does not conform to that typically
associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. (American Heritage Dictionary)
White supremacy: belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and
should therefore dominate society. (O E Dictionary)

71
 Unit 8 - Guns
Facts
1. The 2nd Amendment to the American Constitution.
It is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights and was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, on December 15th,
1791. It defines the United States’ constitutional position on guns but there are major disagreements over the
interpretation of the text.

« A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed »

Discussion questions:
1. What do you think the words “well-regulated militia” referred to in 1791? And today?
2. What “arms” were available in 1791? What about now?

2. Historical and legal background.

(adapted from: http://blogs.kged.org/americas-loaded-history-with-guns/ and https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-
control-laws-history-timeline/)

1791- The 2nd Amendment is ratified.

The amendment results, in part, from the Founding Fathers’ interest in enabling armed citizen militias during
peacetime, as an alternative to maintaining a powerful standing army.

1835- The invention of the revolver by Samuel Colt in 1835 helps boost the buying and selling of handguns.

1865 -The Civil War marks a turning point. Freed Slaves are Denied the Right to Own Guns

The Civil War led to the mass production of weapons. After it was over, soldiers were allowed to take their guns
home. Following the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, every former Confederate state enacted its
own set of Black Codes that were intended to deny basic rights to newly freed blacks. In many states, the codes
prohibited blacks from owning firearms.

1871- Foundation of the NRA, the main gun rights lobby group.

The National Rifle Association was founded by two Union veterans six years after the end of the Civil War. It is only
in the 1970s that the NRA began to actively oppose most gun control laws as an attack on civil liberties. By 2020,
the NRA had more than 6 million members and is considered as one of the most power lobby groups in the USA.

1934 – First federal gun laws enacted.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime”— was meant
to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” The following year, Congress
passed the Federal Firearms Act, which requires sellers to obtain a federal gun license and record the names and
addresses of gun buyers. It also prohibits the sale of guns to convicted felons.

1939- United States v. Miller.

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that, through the National Firearms
Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of short-barrel shotguns. The court held that there was
no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such
an instrument.”

In the late 1960s – The Black Panthers.

“After racist ownership restrictions had fallen away, the Black Panthers tried to close the power differential,
assembling shotgun-armed posses in Oakland, California, to observe officers as they interacted with Black civilians.9

9
“The Panthers understood that guns changed the dynamic, that an officer was going to be less likely to harass them if the officer
thought that they could exercise self-defense, that is why they carried the guns”. Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at
the University of California, in Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

72
They met the implicit threat of a police shooting with the equal threat of an armed intervention, and officers relented:
With the Panthers present, traffic stops and arrests occurred without beatings. The Panthers’ tactic didn’t last —
state legislatures and Congress quickly passed laws restricting access to guns and the ability to carry them openly
in public. In fact, many political historians believe that American lawmakers would never have found a cause in gun
control without a parade of armed Black people on magazine covers and news shows stirring anxiety in the White
populace.”10

1968- President Johnson enacts sweeping gun control legislation.

The Gun Control Act broadly regulates the sale of guns across state lines (interstate commerce). It also increases
license requirements for sellers and prohibits drug users and the “mentally incompetent” from owning guns.

1972- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is created to enforce gun laws.

1974 - The National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH) is created.

The non-profit organization for gun control will later become the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun violence in 2001
and just Brady in 2019. It addresses such issues as the “gun show loophole”, “stand-your ground” and “castle” laws,
vigilantism, semi-automatic weapons and concealed-carry weapons.

1993- Congress mandates background checks for gun buyers.

President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Prevention Act, which imposes a waiting period of up to five days
when buying a handgun and requires buyers to undergo comprehensive background checks. It established the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI. The law is named after
former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot during a 1981 assassination attempt on President
Ronald Reagan and became paralyzed. He died in 2014.

1994- Federal ban on assault weapons.

Commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban, President Clinton signed one of the largest crime bills in US history:
nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be
manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,”
according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet. Weapons and magazines manufactured before the ban,
however, are exempt from the law. The ban is a turning point in the politics of gun control, which is growing
increasingly divisive.

2004- Assault Weapons Ban expires, the possession of semi-automatic weapons is legalized under
Bush’s presidency.

The Republican-controlled Congress does not renew the Assault Weapons Ban after intense lobbying from the NRA.

2008 and 2010- The Supreme Court overturns local handgun bans and expands gun owners’ rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an
“individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia”. It essentially changed the nearly 70-
year-old precedent set in United States v. Miller in 1939 and struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. But
the Supreme Court also asserted that “the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership
would continue to be regulated”. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court further extended gun rights by ruling that the
Second Amendment extends to states (not just federal enclaves).

2012 – Obama fails to convince Congress to ban assault weapons.

Following the Sandy Hook primary school shooting which claimed 26 lives including those of 20 children, President
Barack Obama rolled out a plan for the most sweeping changes to federal gun laws since the 1994 assault weapons
ban. It included stricter regulations on specific weapons, prohibiting the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles and
high-capacity magazines, and requiring background checks for all gun buyers. It was rejected by a Republican-
controlled Congress.

April 2021: The Biden administration announced a set of “six initial actions to address the gun violence public health
epidemic,” among them a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns” which are “homemade guns”
assembled by the purchaser from parts or kits.

10
Champe Barton. Police, Power, and the Specter of Guns, The Trace, ·June 13, 2020, The Trace.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/06/police-power-guns-george-floyd/

73
Discussion questions and vocabulary:
1. Which events/decisions do you think were the most consequential and why?
2. Complete the grid using vocabulary from the facts section.

1.Arme (x3) 4.Porter une 7.La guerre de 10.Permis de port 13.Période

arme/ porter une Sécession d’arme(s) d’attente
arme en la (obligatoire)
dissimulant
2.Arme de poing 5.Fusil 8.Munitions 11.Fusillade 14.Vérification
des antécédents
(judiciaires et
médicaux)
3.Se faire tirer 6.Interdire (x2) 9.Faire des 12.Le vide 15.Des
dessus victimes juridique sur les règlementations
foires aux armes plus strictes

Reading Comprehension

Text 1: “Mass shootings turn America's gun culture into a killing culture” Our
View: Gun violence has not moved Congress to act. Or perhaps Americans' love of guns is just too
strong, The Editorial Board, USA TODAY, June 6th, 2021

Lost amid the weekly spasms of gun violence – the latest a shooting spree outside a Miami-area banquet hall early
Sunday that left two dead and 21 wounded – are the numbers documenting America's unique love affair with firearms.

Whether the result of a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun, or a natural consequence of a U.S. history
forged by conflict and rugged individualism, or both, USA's gun culture is without peer.

There are more guns than people in the United States, with 121 firearms for every 100 residents, (although the
weapons are concentrated in about a third of U.S. households.) America has less than 5% of the world's population
but about 40% of privately owned guns. War-torn Yemen holds second place, with 53 firearms per 100 people.

And gun ownership in the USA is rising rapidly. During the socially disruptive pandemic, the federal government
tracked gun sales exceeding a million per week – the first time that benchmark was hit since officials started
gathering data in 1998.

Whether a corollary to that or not, gun-related homicides and non-suicide shootings have risen just as fast, with a
25% jump in 2020 over 2019. According to an analysis by the gun-control group Everytown, firearm deaths of all
types last year will likely exceed 40,000 – marking 2020 with the highest gun-related death rate in two decades.
About three-quarters of U.S. homicides are related to firearms, a gun-killing ratio that far surpasses Canada (39%),
Australia (22%) and England and Wales (4%).

The same pattern is borne out within the USA, where states with the most gun ownership have recorded the highest
rate of firearm-related deaths, though most of the difference is driven by suicides.
While not the means by which most gun deaths occur in America, mass shootings are traumatizing, high-profile
tragedies that lately have become numbingly routine.

The Miami-area incident came just days after a mass shooting in San Jose, California, where a gunman fatally shot
nine before killing himself. Six weeks before that, nine died in a mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis.
And there were four killed in Orange, California, March 31; 10 in Boulder, Colorado, March 22; and eight in Atlanta
on March 16. In fact, eight of the 15 worst mass shootings in the United States have been in the past decade.

America's culture of guns has become a culture of killing.

This Editorial Board has long supported sensible gun control laws such as closing the gun-show loophole by expanding
background checks (favored by 81% of Americans), banning high-capacity magazines (favored by 64%) and banning
assault-style rifles (63%).

74
President Joe Biden has lately taken modest gun-control steps through executive action, most notably cracking down
on homemade firearms known as ghost guns. But truly effective change is possible only through federal legislation.
Sensible restrictions imposed by individual cities or states can be blunted by relaxed access to guns in neighboring
areas. Biden has a legislative wish list that includes expanding background checks and banning assault-style rifles.
But there seems less appetite than ever in Congress for tightening gun laws.

Pew Research polling shows that rank-and-file Republicans have grown even more recalcitrant about reform. For
example, only 37% support banning assault-style rifles – the weapon of choice for mass shootings – down from 54%
in 2017 and 50% in 2019.

There was a time when it was thought that a single horrible event, such as the slaughter of first-graders in Newtown,
Connecticut, in 2012, could spur Congress to act. That hasn't happened.

Now mass shootings seem to be happening at a harrowing pace. Will lawmakers continue to remain unaffected?
Or perhaps Americans' love of guns is just too strong.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff and the USA TODAY
Network. Most editorials are coupled with an Opposing View, a unique USA TODAY feature.

Questions :
1. How do you understand the term “gun culture”?
2. How does the text define and explain “America’s gun culture”?
3. How does USA TODAY justify its claim that “America’s culture of guns has become a culture of killing”?
4. Discuss the underlined sentence.

Text 2: “Gun Owners of America: Guns save lives every day” Opposing view: Nearly
90% of police agree that mass shootings would be 'reduced' or 'avoided altogether' by the presence
of legally armed citizens, USA TODAY, Erich Pratt, Opinion Contributor, Aug 5th, 2019. Erich Pratt
is the senior vice president of Gun owners of America.

A father uses his concealed handgun to stop a mass shooting in a McDonald's in Alabama. A man uses his gun to
stop a racist gunman outside a Kentucky Kroger. Guns are being used to save lives every day. But sadly, the only
time the national news media want to spend several days covering a firearms story is when the guns are used in a
negative way.
The well-publicized shootings over the past week are heart-wrenching. But just as we should not punish sober drivers
for the actions of a reckless drunk, neither should we demonize firearms or their owners when they are misused by
an evil terrorist.
We know, because of research directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that guns are used 16 to
100 times more often to protect life than to take life. That means there are a whole lot more “guns save lives stories”
not being reported by USA TODAY. We celebrate the brave police officers who stopped three active shooters over
the past week.
But as much as the USA TODAY Editorial Board wants to discount the idea of the “good guy with a gun,” let’s not
forget that almost 90% of police agree that mass shootings would be “reduced” or “avoided altogether” by the
presence of legally armed citizens.

There are multiple examples of good guys or gals stopping mass shooters from all over the country, and the FBI has
documented some of them. But it’s worth noting that the very types of firearms the Editorial Board wants to restrict
are extremely popular — and are frequently used in the defense of life:

►A Houston man fired several rounds while fighting off five home invaders this year, using his AK-47 as his primary
means of defense.
►A Florida man utilized his AR-15 to fire 30 rounds while fighting off seven intruders last year.
►A petite Maryland mom chased three burglars out of her home simply by loading a round into the chamber of her
AR-15.

All these victims were facing multiple attackers, which necessitated having firearms that held multiple rounds.
Finally, to borrow a phrase from the Editorial Board, we have been hit by a series of terror attacks. But terrorists —
whether they’re a “lone wolf” or organized — don’t care about our gun laws, any more than the terrorists who ignored
France’s draconian gun control laws in 2015 and used fully automatic firearms to murder 90 people at the Bataclan
theater.

No, if terrorists were to strike into our malls and neighborhoods, we should hope and pray there will be people like
Stephen Willeford — a retired plumber who used his AR-15-style rifle to mortally wound a de facto terrorist in Texas
two years ago.

75
Questions:
1. Briefly explain how “guns save lives.”
2. How does the author proceed to make his point?
3. Discuss the underlined sentence. Do you agree with it?
4. DISCUSSION/DEBATE: Read both texts from USA TODAY (texts 1 and 2): which arguments for or against
more gun control are the most convincing to you?

Text 3: “The Overlooked Role of Guns in the Police-Reform Debate” Something is

weirdly absent from the general discussion about police violence in America: the weapon most
commonly used to inflict it, Derek Thompson, The Atlantic, June 19, 2020.

The story I can’t get out of my head is the death of Philando Castile.

In the summer of 2016, in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, Castile, a 32-year-old black man, was pulled over in
a car he was driving, along with his partner and her 4-year-old daughter.

“How are you?” Castile asked the approaching officer, according to a published transcript.
“Good,” said the cop, a 28-year-old Hispanic American named Jeronimo Yanez. At the driver-side window, he asked
for a license and proof of insurance.

“Sir, I have to tell you,” Castile said, “I have a firearm on me.” As his mother would later tell The New York Times,
she had instructed her son to “comply, comply, comply” with law enforcement. So he did.
The statement made the officer nervous. “Don’t reach for it,” Yanez said. The gun, he meant.
“I’m,” Castile replied, “I was reaching for—” The wallet, he meant.
“Don’t pull it out!”
“I’m not pulling it out.”
“He’s not pulling it out,” Castile’s partner affirmed.
“Don’t pull it out!” Yanez yelled again. Then the officer unholstered his own gun and fired seven shots at point-blank
range. Five bullets hit Castile. Two pierced his heart. Within minutes, he was dead. A licensed firearm sat untouched
in the dead man’s pocket. Philando Castile was shot and killed reaching for his wallet.

The following summer, Yanez was found not guilty of second-degree manslaughter by a jury of 12 men and women.
His lawyers had argued, persuasively it seems, that the mere presence of a gun—even untouched, in the trousers
of a man with a legal permit to carry it—was enough to exonerate the point-blank execution of an innocent black
driver with a busted brake light.

It’s been four years now. The list of men and women killed by law enforcement seems to grow every month. So why
can’t I stop thinking about Philando Castile?

Because I think few other chapters in the long epic of American police brutality so capture the hell into which we
have all chosen to walk, arm in arm, under the banner of the Constitution. Castile was set up to die by a country
that proclaimed his inviolable right to a gun, legally approved his right to carry, and then excused his killing by virtue
of the fact that the object he’d been permitted to keep in his pocket could also be used as a precondition for his
slaughter.

Castile was killed by a cop in a country where it is more dangerous for a black man to exercise his Second Amendment
right than it is for a white man; that is undeniable. But he also died at the hands of a culture that, in celebrating
widespread gun ownership, makes it all but inevitable that the United States has more armed police than similarly
rich countries, more panicky officers, more adversarial police encounters, more officer shootings, and more civilian
killings.

The morbid exceptionalism of American police violence cannot be explained by the amount of money the U.S. spends
on police, or by the number of cops it employs. The U.S. spends less on police than the European Union does, as a
share of GDP. Italy has more officers per capita than any state in the U.S., according to a comparison of FBI and
Eurostat databases. Greece has more officers per person than Newark, New Jersey; Baltimore; and Chicago.

But none of those places shares our epidemic of police violence. American police kill about 1,000 people every year.
Adjusted for population, that body count is five times higher than that in Sweden, 30 times higher than that in
Germany, and 100 times higher than that in the United Kingdom.

Many differences between the U.S. and the European Union can partly explain these gaps, including our history of
systemic racism and our porous social safety net. But without the mention of guns, no explanation for America’s
record of police violence is complete.

Let’s begin with the simplest fact: Life is more dangerous in the presence of firearms—period. A 2013 study of U.S.
states in the American Journal of Public Health found that for each percentage-point increase in gun ownership, the

76
overall firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent, controlling for other factors. The correlation between gun
availability and violent crime is statistically significant at every level of income. More money can spare Americans
from the material and psychological ravages of poverty, but it does not buy an exception from the deadly social
physics of guns.

Gun prevalence—roughly 400 million firearms are in circulation in the U.S.— is a danger for cops, too. As the Vox
reporter German Lopez writes, police officers are especially likely to be shot dead in states with more guns. A 2015
study published in the American Journal of Public Health examined the relationship between state firearm-ownership
rates and police killings, controlling for factors that relate with homicide rates, such as income, poverty, property
crime, and alcohol consumption. The researchers concluded that “a 10% increase in firearm ownership correlated to
ten additional officer homicides” from 1996 to 2010.

Where guns are abundant, civilians are more likely to kill civilians and cops, and cops are, in turn, more likely to kill
civilians. A 2018 study from Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that
“rates of police shooting deaths are significantly and positively correlated with levels of household gun ownership,”
even after accounting for other variables, such as poverty.

One of the most common criticisms of modern policing is that officers dealing with traffic violations and homeless
people shouldn’t be lugging around military-style weaponry or exhibiting a “warrior” mentality on the street. Seth
W. Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, calls that mentality “the most
problematic aspect of modern [police] policy.”

Both police militarization and this pernicious “warrior mentality” are a direct response to gun violence and mass
shootings. After the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, where police officers faced sniper fire over several bloody days,
the LAPD responded by creating the nation’s first SWAT team. After the University of Texas clock-tower shootings
the following year, other police departments added their own quasi-military units. In 1997, the LAPD faced off against
two bank robbers in North Hollywood, who held off the officers with automatic rifles and body armor. This highly
publicized event spurred police departments to arm patrol officers with heavy weapons, and “the AR-15 rifle, a
semiautomatic, civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle, became the weapon of choice for patrol officers,”
Stoughton wrote in the Wake Forest Law Review in 2016.

Today’s warrior-cop training is inappropriate, as violent crime has declined by more than 70 percent since 1993. But
perhaps some police paranoia comes from the fact that the U.S. has added twice as many guns as people since the
mid-1990s. “Generally, when a police officer pulls up to a car in Australia, they don’t expect someone to be armed,”
Terry Goldsworthy, a criminologist at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, has said. Indeed, just 6 percent of
Australian households own a gun. In the U.S., that figure is 43 percent.

We should stop thinking about guns as just an acute threat, and start thinking about them as something more like
lead poisoning—an environmental toxicity that builds over decades and leads to a host of social and cognitive
problems. Gun prevalence increases civilian violence and officer shootings, which makes cops more concerned about
getting killed, which in turn leads officers to bedeck themselves in quasi-military gear, escalate conflicts that don’t
deserve escalation, and, too often, shoot and kill. “When police are involved in an encounter where guns are more
prevalent in general, I wouldn’t be surprised that their level of anxiety were heightened,” says Matt Miller, a health-
sciences professor at Northeastern and a co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

The solutions are socially and politically improbable—but perhaps no more improbable than abolishing the police.
They could begin with banning guns of war, requiring universal background checks, and instituting national “red flag”
laws to keep guns from potentially dangerous people. These measures might sound small-bore compared with the
challenge before us, but they could still make a difference. Deborah Azrael, also of the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center, has found that 40 percent of gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background
check. There are not many issues that easily unite police reformers and police unions, but reducing the social toxin
of gun prevalence, especially in high-crime areas, ought to be at the top of that short list.

In a country where guns are protected by the Constitution and cherished by tens of millions of Americans, meaningful
change will require a major social movement. Perhaps we’re seeing the seeds of that groundswell right now. As long
as reformers are imagining the future of an unbundled police force, they have to be clear-eyed about the roots of
civilian and police violence. Which means they have to talk about guns.

Questions:
1. What does the killing of Philando Castile show, according to the author?
2. Discuss the underlined sentence.
3. What does the author think of the possible solutions?

77
Listening Comprehension

“Pittsburgh Restricts Use of Assault-Style Weapons, Setting Up Court Fight”

April 9, 2019, npr.org – 3:15
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=711401894

Questions:
1. What has the mayor of Pittsburgh done?
2. What problems did he face as a result and what happened in Pittsburgh concerning gun control?
3. What have city officials done to abide by state laws?
4. What was the NRA’s reaction to this law?

Cartoons

A. Compare the classic painting and its modern interpretation.

1.Norman Rockwell’s “The Runaway”, cover of

the Saturday Evening Post, 20th Sept. 1958.
2.Mad magazine. “The militarization of officer
Joe”.
https://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/
08/21/if-norman-rockwell-depicted-todays-
america-the-militarization-of-officer-joe

B. Do the following cartoons promote gun rights or gun control? What point is being made in each
cartoon?

1.

78
2.

3.

4.

79
Grammar: Tenses
Complete the sentences with infinitive to, a gerund (-ing) or a simple verb base.

1) This man is too honest …………………………. somebody. (kill)

2) You can’t …………………………. that gun into the shop. (bring)

3) She doesn’t feel like …………………………. today. (go out)

4) The murderer refused …………………………. to the police. (surrender)

5) His mother ………………………… him apologize for threatening his friend yesterday. (make)

6) I’d rather ………………………… a semiautomatic rifle. (buy)

7) I didn’t mean …………………………. that man. (harm)

8) Unfortunately, we can't afford …………………………. a new rifle this year. (buy)

9) The President urges Congress ……………….. (pass) an appropriate national “red flag” law.

10) I miss …………………………. to the shooting range. (go)

11) Are you done …………………………. your weapon yet? (fire)

12) Finally, I managed ………………………….. my weapon. (clean)

13) The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help ………………….(stop) the proliferation of
“ghost guns.” Criminals are buying kits containing nearly all of the components and directions for
……………………..(finish) a firearm within as little as 30 minutes and using these firearms to commit crimes.

Key terms
BACKGROUND CHECKS: Federal law requires anyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer to submit to a
background check. Convicted criminals and people who have been declared by a judge to be "mentally defective"
are among those barred from buying a gun.

CONCEALED CARRY PRACTICE: the practice of carrying a weapon (such as a handgun) in public in a concealed
manner.

GUN CONTROL: efforts to regulate or control the sale of guns.

MASS SHOOTING: when one person kills more than 4 people in a single shooting event.

NRA (National Rifle Association): today, a lobby/single interest-group that stands for the protection of the
Second Amendment which guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

OPEN CARRY: the practice of openly carrying a firearm on one’s person in public.

RED FLAG LAWS: laws which allow the seizure of guns from a person deemed dangerous. 19 states and Washington
D.C. have enacted these laws. Connecticut was first in 1999.

STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS: In 2005, Florida passed a law related to the castle doctrine, expanding on that
premise with “stand your ground” language related to self-defense and duty to retreat. Florida’s law states “a person
who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be
has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,
if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” (National Conference of State Legislature,
https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx)

THE CASTLE DOCTRINE: The common law “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable
force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified
and expanded by state legislatures. (National Conference of State Legislature, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-
and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx)

80
Going further
A. Movies

Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine. 2002

Gus Van Sant. Elephant. 2003

Lynne Ramsey. We Need To Talk About Kevin. 2011.

B. Videos

Trevor Noah. The Daily Show: “Emantic Bradford Jr’s death and Why the Second Amendment does not apply to Black
men,” 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwQjH7T .

CNN. “Militarization of the Police?”, August 2014 (after the killing of Michael Brown and the protests that followed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQAOfNXwAGA

Klepper Podcast. “When Guns, Race and Activism Intersect, Things Get Complicated.”,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPaU1D_ICM

C. Articles

- Lopez, German. “How the NRA resurrected the Second Amendment”. Vox. May 4, 2018.
- Stephens, Brett. “Repeal the Second Amendment”, The New York Times. 10/05/2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html?_r=0-
- Karen Grigsby Bates. “Stand Your Ground Laws Complicate Matters For Black Gun Owners”
(https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/27/517109271/stand-your-ground-laws-complicate-matters-
for-black-gun-owners?t=1593429440463
-Harriott, Michael. “Report: White Men Stockpile Guns because they are Afraid”, The Root.
https://www.theroot.com/report-white-men-stockpile-guns-because-they-re-afraid-1823779218. 19 Nov 2019.
- Kopel, David. “Firearms, technology and the second amendment”, The Washington Post, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-
meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

D. Websites

Gun rights:
The National Rifle Association (NRA). https://home.nra.org/
Gun owners of America (GOA). https://www.gunowners.org/

Gun control:
Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence. https://www.bradyunited.org/
American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention. https://www.aslgvp.org/

81
 Unit 9 – The Death Penalty
Facts
Definition:
A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious
crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death penalty, or capital
punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital
crimes. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death-penalty-law/)

A. Legal background

Death sentences are typically state affairs but take place within federal legal guidelines (Supreme Court). Crimes
punishable by death may include first-degree (premeditated) murder, murder with special circumstances, rape with
additional bodily harm, and the federal crime of treason. Capital punishment is referred to in the American
Constitution in the 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments but abolitionists mainly refer to the 8th amendment to put an
end to the death penalty as it aims at prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.” (Amendment VIII, 1791)

According to the Death Penalty Information Center (see map below), the death penalty is still legal in 28
states in 2020, though 3 of them have already applied a governor-imposed moratorium (California, Oregon and
Pennsylvania):

Source: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state

The federal government (including the US military) also uses capital punishment. The federal government
and states have their own set of aggravating circumstances for capital punishment (the number of victims, the
victim’s age and whether they are a police officer or a federal agent for example). Rape, air piracy, terrorism,
kidnapping, bank robbery are also aggravating circumstances.

B. Historical backgrounds and facts about the death penalty

The practice of capital punishment was imported by the first settlers. In 1608, captain John Kendall was executed
in Virginia for being a spy for Spain. There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. In
1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down capital punishment statutes in Furman v. Georgia, reducing all death
sentences pending at the time to life imprisonment. Subsequently, a majority of states passed new death penalty
statutes, and the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of capital punishment in the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia.

Since then, more than 7,800 defendants have been sentenced to death and of these, 1,518 have been executed
(June 11, 2020). Among them, 16 women. 22 individuals were executed between 1976 and 2005 for crimes
committed as juveniles. Since 1976, 288 individuals have been granted clemency (as of July 2018). In 1977,
Oklahoma becomes the first state to adopt lethal injection as a means of execution.

82
 For federal death row inmates, the president alone has the power to grant a pardon. 2,721 inmates (among
them 55 women) are still on death row on October 1, 2018 the most recent date for which data is available from the
Criminal Justice Project.
The US government and US military have 62 people awaiting execution as of December 21, 2018. African
Americans make up 42% of the death row population despite the fact that blacks only make up 13 % of the US
population. Studies have shown that they are 40 % more likely to get the death penalty than whites for the same
crime (see https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies).

1997: the American Bar Association calls for a suspension of the death penalty until changes “are made to make
certain that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially.”

March 16, 2011: The Drug Enforcement Agency seizes Georgia's supply of thiopental, over questions of where the
state obtained the drug. US manufacturer Hospira stopped producing the drug in 2009. The countries that still
produce the drug do not allow it to be exported to the US for use in lethal injections.

January 16, 2014: Ohio executes inmate Dennis McGuire with a new combination of drugs, due to the unavailability
of drugs such as pentobarbital. The state uses a combination of the drugs midazolam and hydromorphone, according
to the state corrections department. The execution process takes 24 minutes, and McGuire appears to be gasping
for air for 10 to 13 minutes, according to witness Alan Johnson, a reporter with the Columbus Dispatch.

March 2015: Utah enacts legislation allowing for execution by firing squad if the drugs they use are unavailable.

October 2018: Washington state Supreme Court abolishes the death penalty.

April 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court confirms a legal standard established in a 2015 case, under which prisoners
seeking to challenge a torturous lethal injection must present a suitable alternative way for the state to execute
them.

2020: Colorado repeals capital punishment. All death sentences have since been commuted to life sentences.

Exercise 1: Vocabulary. Find the translation for the following words.

Circonstances aggravantes
Abolir/abroger
L’accusé
Condamné à mort
Un détenu dans le couloir de la mort
Une erreur judiciaire
Être innocenté
Peloton d’exécution

Exercise 2: Questions. Test your knowledge.

1. How many people were executed in the US in 2020?
a. 17 b. 44 c. 88 d. 121

2. Which state has highest number of death row prisoners in January 2020?
a. California b. Texas c. Kansas d. Virginia

3. Which state has had the highest number of executions since 1776?
a. Texas b. California c. Virginia d. Ohio

4. Which region has the highest number of executions?

a. South b. Midwest c. West d. Northeast

5. Since 1999, the number of death sentences per year has increased dramatically.
a. True b. False

6. It is legal to execute defendants with ‘mental retardation’ in the US.

a. True b. False

7. The death penalty lowers homicide rates.

a. True b. False

83
 8. Those who commit a crime when they are under 18 years of age are ineligible for
the death penalty in the U.S.
a. True b. False

9. Women accounted for … of the total death row population in 2019.

a. 0,5% b. 2% c. 8% d. 17%

10. Which execution methods are still authorized in the US today?

a. Electrocution b. Gas chamber c. Hanging d. Firing squad

11. Electrocution has been the primary method used by most states plus the US
government since 1976.
a. True b. False

12. It is more expensive to try, convict and execute an offender than to incarcerate
them for life.
a. True b. False

13. What percentage of death row inmates cannot afford to pay for their own
attorney?
a. 35% b. 54% c. 78% d. 95%

14. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
a. True b. False

15. The United States ranks 5 in Amnesty International list of state executioners.
a. True b. False

Reading Comprehension
Text 1: “Biden’s silence on executions adds to death penalty disarray”, Michael
Tarm, Associated Press Chicago, 06/18/2021
Activists widely expected Joe Biden to take swift action against the death penalty as the first sitting president to
oppose capital punishment, especially since an unprecedented spate of executions by his predecessor ended just
days before Biden took office.

Instead, the White House has been mostly silent. Biden hasn’t said whether he’d back a bill introduced by fellow
Democrats to strike the death penalty from U.S. statutes. He also hasn’t rescinded Trump-era protocols enabling
federal executions to resume and allowing prisons to use firing squads if necessary, something many thought he’d
do on day one.

And this week, his administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the Boston Marathon bomber’s original death
sentence.
The hands-off approach in Washington is adding to disarray around the death penalty nationwide as pressure
increases in some conservative states to find ways to continue executions amid shortages of the lethal-injection
drugs. Worse, some longtime death penalty observers say, is that Biden’s silence risks sending a message that he’s
OK with states adopting alternative execution methods.
His cautious approach demonstrates the practical and political difficulties of ending or truncating capital punishment
after it’s been integral to the criminal justice system for centuries, even as popular support for the death penalty
among both Democrats and Republicans wanes.

Support for the death penalty among Americans is at near-historic lows after peaking in the mid-1990s and steadily
declining since, with most recent polls indicating support now hovers around 55%, according to the nonpartisan
Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
Biden didn’t make capital punishment a prominent feature of his presidential run, but he did say on his campaign
website that he would work “to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level, and incentivize
states to follow the federal government’s example.”
That simple-sounding promise was historic because it wasn’t just about the federal death penalty, which, before
former President Donald Trump, had been carried out just three times in the previous five decades. Then, 13 federal
prisoners were executed during Trump’s last six months in office during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
Biden’s promise also took direct aim at states, which, combined, have executed some 1,500 inmates since the 1970s;
27 states still have death penalty laws.

84
But the fact that the Biden administration chose to actively push for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s execution suggests the
president’s opposition to the death penalty isn’t as all-inclusive as many activists believed.

Meanwhile, states have resorted to other means as drugs used in lethal injections have become increasingly hard to
procure. Pharmaceutical companies in the 2000s began banning the use of their products for executions, saying they
were meant to save lives, not take them. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has declined to explain how it obtained
pentobarbital for the lethal injections under Trump.

Some states have refurbished electric chairs as standbys for when lethal drugs are unavailable.

On Wednesday, South Carolina halted two executions until the state could pull together firing squads.

To the disbelief of many, Arizona went so far as to acquire materials to make cyanide hydrogen — the poisonous
gas deployed by Nazis to kill 865,000 Jews at Auschwitz — for possible use in the state’s death chamber.

“Execution processes are becoming more and more out of touch with core American values,” Robert Dunham,
director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said about Arizona’s purchase. “It provides a very clear picture of
what the death penalty has become in the United States.”

Protocols put in place under Trump and not rescinded by Biden allow the U.S. government to employ execution
methods sanctioned in states where a federal defendant was sentenced, Dunham said. That means, in theory, federal
executioners could also use hydrogen cyanide.

Dunham said death by hydrogen cyanide stands out as uniquely brutal, invariably leading to an “extended, torturous
death.”

Even if there’s virtually no chance the U.S. government would ever embrace an execution method favored by Nazis,
Dunham said the very idea that it’s theoretically possible should horrify Biden administration officials and spur them
to act with an even greater sense of urgency.

Abe Bonowitz, director of the anti-capital punishment group Death Penalty Action, said he and other activists have
spoken with administration officials and received some behind-the-scenes assurances that Biden will eventually
support legislation to abolish the federal death penalty. “We know this is not the biggest fish they have to fry right
now. But we are hearing they will get to it,” said Bonowitz, who has been critical of Biden’s silence.

The president could take the path of least resistance, politically speaking, by telling his Justice Department not to
schedule federal executions during his term. But that would fall far short of fulfilling his campaign promise, and it
would leave the door open for future presidents to restart executions.

He could also use his executive powers to commute all federal death sentences to life in prison, but there’s no sign
of that happening. Granting full clemency to everyone on death row could be politically problematic for Biden and
other Democrats, who have a slim majority in both the House and the Senate. Among those whose lives would be
spared by such a Biden order would be Dylann Roof, who killed nine Black church members during a Bible study
session in South Carolina and was the first person sentenced to death for a federal hate crime.

Preliminary work: Find the words corresponding to the following definitions in the text:
• a large number of things, which are usually unpleasant, that happen suddenly within a short period of time
(noun):
• to officially state that a law, contract, decision, etc. no longer has any legal force (verb):
• a group of soldiers who are ordered to shoot and kill somebody who is found guilty of a crime (noun):
• dealing with people or a situation by not becoming involved and by allowing people to do what they want to
(adjective):
• a lack of order or organization in a situation or a place (verb):
• to become gradually weaker or less important (verb):
• to encourage somebody to behave in a particular way by offering them a reward (verb):
• a person or thing that can always be used if needed, for example if somebody/something else is not available
or if there is an emergency (noun):

Questions:
1. What is the gist of the news report?
2. How does the journalist account for Biden’s stance on the death penalty? Does he agree with it?
3. Discuss the underlined sentence.

85
Text 2: “Ohio’s death penalty is back, and that’s a good thing11”, Dawson Mecum,
The New Political, September 19, 2017
Some people would argue that the death penalty is inhumane or a waste of time and money. Opinion
writer Dawson Mecum disagrees.

Controversial political topics always seem to rotate between election years. But there are certain issues that are
always at the top of the list and will stay there for as long as America has free speech. The death penalty is and
forever will be one of the most controversial issues when it comes to modern politics. Those who oppose the death
penalty accuse those who support it of being unethical and immoral, when in reality, the death penalty is necessary
to serve and protect future victims.

Over the summer, Ohio had its first execution since 2014. Ronald Phillips was 19 years old when he committed one
of the most heinous of crimes. Phillips was convicted of raping and murdering Sheila Marie Evans, his girlfriend’s 3-
year-old daughter, in Akron in 1993. The execution was put on hold due to Phillips and two other inmates challenging
that the usage of certain drugs in capital punishment was cruel and unusual.

The real cruel and unusual punishment was the rape and murder of a 3-year-old girl who never got to enjoy the life
that was in front of her, and who never got to have those moments of childhood that we cherish and hold onto so
dearly. But to some, the death penalty is an uncivilized idea that has no place in a civilized country like America.
The death penalty is a last resort option. The death penalty should not be about closure or revenge. It should simply
be about bringing justice to those who commit crimes against humanity.

A life sentence in Ohio where the offense is second degree murder is 15 years to life. So, what happens when the
accused is released? According to the Institute of Justice, about 76.6 percent of released prisoners are rearrested,
and of those prisoners who were released, 56.7 percent were arrested within their first year of being released. The
death penalty makes sure that those who are convicted of rape, aggravated murder or any other heinous crime do
not have the chance to harm anyone else. It negates the possibility of these criminals hurting anyone else.

The cost of the death penalty, however, is a concern. According to a study done by The Dayton Daily News, the cost
of the death penalty in Ohio is an estimated $3 million per death penalty case, including execution per inmate. In
comparison, the average cost of life without parole is estimated to be about $1 million. About $16 million in funds is
used to maintain the death penalty in Ohio. While some argue these funds could be used in a more efficient way, it
should be the price of saved lives and justice that matters more.

The death penalty should be done right, as well. In January of 2014, the same drug that was used in the Phillips
execution was used in another where the inmate took an unusually long time to die. Witness reports say that the
man struggled and was visibly in pain once the drug was administered. Drugs administered to inmates placed on
death row should meet medical requirements and cause as little suffering as possible.

According to a study led by Samuel Gross at the University of Michigan, the true number of wrongly accused people
sentenced to the death penalty is unknowable, but estimated to be between 1.6 and 4 percent. This number should
continue to go down with the improvements in technology and advances in the criminal justice field. The death
penalty does have a hint of uncertainty wrapped around it. With the constant changes between crime rates and
executions, it is nearly impossible to determine whether the death penalty deters crime with the studies that have
been conducted. The uncertainty of the deterrence rate brings the argument to a standstill.

The death penalty does not necessarily deter criminals from committing these heinous crimes, but what it does make
sure of is that these evil and uncivilized human beings can never harm another soul, and that is the goal of justice
— to make it easier for people to sleep at night knowing there is one less criminal out there.

Questions:
1. What are the author’s main arguments in favour of the death penalty?
2. Which arguments are the most compelling to you and why? Which ones do you dismiss altogether and why?
3. Comment on the underlined sentence: “the goal of justice [is] to make it easier for people to sleep at night
knowing there is one less criminal out there.”

11
In March 2019, Ohio Governor DeWine ordered the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to find a new method for
executing death row inmates. Until that happens, all executions are on hold. Between 2017 and 2019 four inmates have been
executed.

86
Text 3: “How Coronavirus is Disrupting the Death Penalty”, Kery Blakinger &
Maurice Chammah, The Marshall Project, March 23, 2020
With a signature from Gov. Jared Polis, Colorado on Monday became the 22nd state to abolish the death penalty.
But the governor’s long-planned intervention comes at a moment when capital punishment is already at a standstill
across the nation for a very different reason: coronavirus. The growing global pandemic has at least temporarily
saved two condemned men from execution in Texas, with more delays sought elsewhere. The pandemic has also
stopped trials in which the death penalty was being sought. It has even upended the process for defense attorneys
to try to exonerate their clients facing capital punishment.

“Almost every aspect of legal representation is at a halt in the judicial system,” said Amanda Marzullo, a consultant
with the Innocence Project. “People are effectively unable to prepare and investigate their cases.”

The first delay came in Texas, where an appeals court pushed back the scheduled March 18 lethal injection of John
Hummel. The Tarrant County man’s lawyers argued that the number of people gathering to witness and carry out
the execution would risk spreading the virus. Days later, the same court postponed the March 25 execution of Tracy
Beatty, giving him a similar 60-day delay “in light of the current health crisis and the enormous resources needed
to address that emergency.”

In both cases, prosecutors opposed the requests to call off the executions, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice
officials said they could still safely carry out the lethal injections, even after they’d barred visitors from prisons across
the state.

In addition to halting executions, the coronavirus has also disrupted an exoneration. In Pennsylvania, Walter Ogrod
was about to be released after more than two decades on death row for the murder of 4-year-old Barbara Jean Horn,
according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Prosecutors had agreed he was “likely innocent.” Then, the 55-year-old began
coughing and developed a fever — symptoms of the COVID-19 virus. Over the weekend, a judge ordered that he be
transferred from death row to a hospital outside prison, but state corrections officials confirmed to The Marshall
Project that they have not moved Ogrod yet. They argue that the court lacked jurisdiction and that two prison doctors
determined he didn't need to be tested.

Ogrod's lawyer is continuing to demand he be released and tested and is asking the judge to expedite a ruling finding
Ogrod innocent.

Executions are frequently put on hold due to Supreme Court decisions and lethal injection drug shortages, but rarely
do natural events play such a disruptive role. One example was in 2017, when Juan Castillo’s execution was delayed
after Hurricane Harvey hit Texas.

And more stays may be coming. Last week, lawyers for Oscar Smith asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to delay
his June 4 execution. They said they plan to ask Gov. Bill Lee for clemency but cannot put together an application
“without putting themselves and others at risk” of contracting the virus. Executions are also scheduled for May in
Missouri and June in Ohio, although the latter state lacks lethal injection drugs.

Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, did not find the delays surprising.
“Every state that intends to go forward with an execution during this health crisis will have legal issues,” he said.
“When you’re in the final weeks before an execution, access to a client is an absolute necessity and access to the
courts is an absolute necessity. Where that access is impaired because of a public health emergency you simply
can’t go forward.”

He added that often exculpatory evidence surfaces close to a scheduled execution, when witnesses come forward.
In recent months, witnesses have emerged to bolster the eleventh-hour innocence claims of Rodney Reed in Texas
and James Dailey in Florida.

With trials halted around the country, the number of new death sentences will drop, at least temporarily. Even before
Colorado’s governor signed the abolition bill, a judge in Adams County postponed the trial of Dreion Dearing, who
was facing a death sentence for the murder of Deputy Heath Gumm in 2018.

In Tarrant County, Texas, prosecutors agreed to postpone the trial of Reginald Kimbro, who faces a potential death
sentence if he’s convicted of the rapes and murders of two young women in 2017. Kimbro’s lawyer Steve Gordon
said many jurors were elderly, and witnesses were slated to travel from Arkansas. “All trials have been postponed
at this time,” said Sam Jordan, communications officer at the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, in
an email. “The focus right now is on protecting the public health, which includes everyone involved in the trial
process.”

The slowdown caused by the COVID-19 crisis is even affecting cases that would not go to trial for months. People
who face a death sentence typically work with a defense investigator whose job is to gather information to sway the

87
jury towards mercy. These specialists do most of their interviewing in person, because it allows them to gain sensitive
information about mental health issues and trauma. “If you knock on somebody’s door during a pandemic, you’re
creating more barriers to relationship-building,” said Elizabeth Vartkessian, who oversees investigations for the non-
profit Advancing Real Change, Inc.

Questions:
1. Find the words corresponding to the following definitions in the text:
• A situation in which all activity or movement has stopped (noun):
• To officially state that somebody is not responsible for something that they have been blamed for (verb):
• To cancel something (verb); to decide that something will not happen (verb):
• To ban or prevent somebody from doing something (verb):
• A delay in following the order of a court (noun):
• Damaged or not functioning normally (adjective):
• Evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial (noun):
• To improve something or make it stronger (verb):
• Someone who is hired by a defense attorney to help gather and analyse evidence in criminal and civil
trials (noun):
• To persuade somebody to believe something or do something (verb):
2. What is the effect of coronavirus on the death penalty?
3. What does Robert Dunham think of delaying executions?

Text 4 “The death penalty makes a mockery of our justice system. Abolish it.”
David Bon Drehle, The Washington Post, March 15, 2019

There once was a burning political issue known as capital punishment. Others called it the death penalty. Entire
political careers in the 1980s and 1990s were built on it or ruined by it. Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the presidency,
many pundits said in 1988, by seeming mushy when asked what he would do if some guy murdered his wife. The
1992 nominee, Bill Clinton, learned the lesson. He jetted home to the Arkansas governor’s mansion in the middle of
the campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally impaired prisoner.

But, as with other obsessions from the mix-tape era — such as Biosphere 2, the Y2K Bug and Hillary Clinton’s
hairstyles — capital punishment has lost its grip on the public. The nation’s largest death row was shut down
Wednesday with hardly a yawn in response.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced that he will not pursue the execution of any of the 737 death-sentenced
inmates at San Quentin State Prison. Calling capital punishment “ineffective, irreversible and immoral,” Newsom
ordered the decommissioning of the execution chamber and rescinded the state’s protocol for lethal injection. These
steps will make it more difficult for future California governors to reverse course.

The governors of Colorado, Oregon and Pennsylvania have already renounced the death penalty and have suffered
no appreciable political backlash. Including California, these four indefinite pauses cover roughly one-third of all
death row prisoners in the United States. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has suspended the death penalty in his state
— home to another 144 condemned prisoners — until an execution protocol can be devised that meets court
standards.

Elsewhere, halts originally ordered by governors have led to outright abolition. Last year, Washington’s state
Supreme Court cemented a 2014 moratorium by declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. In Illinois, a governor’s
moratorium became permanent in 2011 when the legislature abolished capital punishment.

What used to be political dynamite has become about as explosive as damp newsprint. By walking away from capital
punishment, elected leaders are essentially converting death sentences to life imprisonment without parole — and
getting away with it for much the same reason Newsom was able to scale back California’s pie-in-the-sky bullet train
earlier this year. The public is wise to expensive gestures that produce scant results.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over nearly half a century that the death penalty is different from all
other punishments. It must meet stringent standards to be lawful. This perfectionism, fine on paper, has proved
impossible for lower courts to satisfy reliably and efficiently.

So Newsom’s moratorium comes some 13 years after California’s last execution. In 2006, the state ended the life of
a triple-murderer whose appeals had been rattling through the courts for nearly 25 years. Since then, nothing. Just
endless waiting and endless litigation, with a price tag that experts reckon is in the billions. Nationwide, fewer than
1 percent of death row prisoners were executed in 2018. A death row prisoner in 2016 (the most recent year for
which data is available) was almost exactly as likely to die of natural causes as by execution. That’s not surprising
given that the median age of inmates on death row was approaching 50.

88
These realities — high costs and rare results — first altered the politics of the death penalty at the local level,
beginning some 20 years ago. Elected prosecutors, seeing their budgets decimated by the expense of capital trials
and appeals, stopped seeking the death penalty. Between 1981 and 2000, U.S. courts imposed more than 200 death
sentences per year — sometimes more than 300. But then the number fell sharply and hasn’t topped 50 per year
since 2014.

Meanwhile, police officials came to the same realization. A poll of 500 police chiefs in 2008, commissioned by the
Death Penalty Information Center, found that capital punishment ranked last among their preferred crime-fighting
strategies. This is the background against which so many governors have felt safe to be sane. State by state, they’re
putting an end to this wasteful folly. State legislators are inching in the same direction. From New Hampshire to
Wyoming, lawmakers are advancing bills to end capital punishment — led, in many cases, by conservatives.

Sooner or later, this sea change is likely to register on the institution that gave us this mess. In 1972, the Supreme
Court looked out at a nation in which hundreds of prisoners languished on death rows and hardly any were executed.
The court struck down this arbitrary system, and for four years there was no death penalty in the United States. But
states promised that a more elaborate system would deliver reliable results.

Well, the results of that experiment are in. After more than four decades of tinkering with the system, capital
punishment is a costly mockery of justice. What was unconstitutional in 1972 remains so today. The high court
should call the whole thing off.

Questions:
1. Find the words corresponding to the following definitions in the text:
• People who know a lot about a particular subject and who often talk about it in public (noun):
• Too emotional in a way that is embarrassing (adjective):
• The cells in a prison for prisoners who are waiting to be killed as punishment for a serious crime (noun):
• To stop opening for business; to stop working (verb):
• To officially state that a law, contract, decision, etc. no longer has any legal force (verb):
• Complete, total, open, direct (adjective):
• A temporary stopping of an activity, especially by official agreement (noun):
• Hardly any; not very much and not as much as there should be (adjective):
• Very strict and that must be obeyed (of a law, rule, regulation, etc.) (adjective):
• To move or make something move slowly and carefully in a particular direction (verb):
• To be forced to stay somewhere or suffer something unpleasant for a long time (verb):
2. What is happening in California?
3. Is the journalist surprised by this decision? Why?
4. Comment on the underlined sentence from the text: “What used to be political dynamite has become about
as explosive as damp newsprint.”

Listening Comprehension
Video 1: “Court rules on the use of lethal injection drug”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khm7bF8HDvk (1:50)

Questions:
1. How many drugs are mainly used for lethal injection?
2. What happened after the American company stopped making the first one?
3. What seems to be the problem with Midazolam?
4. Why did the Supreme Court uphold the use of Midazolam?

Video 2: “Kavanaugh: Attorney was "relentless, determined" to keep African

Americans off Curtis Flowers' justice”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmV6zq8Ikss (2:03), CBS June 22, 2019.

Questions:
1. Why is Chris Flowers on death row and how did his case gain notoriety?
2. What was the Supreme Court ruling about?
3. How does Brett Kavanaugh explain the court’s ruling?

89
Cartoons

Image 1

Joel Pett, 13 June 2014

http://www.theeditorialcartoons.com/
store/add.php?iid=112764

Image 2

https://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/

Image 3

https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com
/2010/05/cartoons-on-capital-
punishment.html

Grammar: Asking questions/reported speech

1. Asking questions

Read the following questions and find the key structure of questions in English:
1. Is he innocent?
2. Do you believe in retribution or Lex Talionis?
3. Should the US abolish the death penalty?
4. Will Texas remain the state with the highest number of executions?

Structure: ____________________________________________________

90
EXERCISE: Find the question that corresponds to the following answer.

1.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à George Stinney is the youngest person ever executed in the US in the 20th century.

2.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à He was 14.

3.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à He was accused of murdering two white girls.

4.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à He was electrocuted.

5.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à The trial took place in 1944 in South Carolina.

6.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à The trial lasted 4 hours.

7.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à No one knows for sure whether he killed those two girls.

8.
_________________________________________________________________________________
à No, he is not. The youngest person ever executed in the US was 12-year-old mulatto Hannah Ocuish in 1786.

2. Reported Speech. Read the following rule and grids

As a rule, when you report something someone has said you go back a tense, i.e., the tense on the left changes to
the tense on the right:

Direct speech Indirect speech

I said, ‘I am not very happy at work.’ I told her I was not very happy at work.
They said: ‘we are going home.’ They told us they were going home.
He said, ‘Jane will be late.’ He said that Jane would be late.
‘I have been working,’ she said. She said she had been working.
‘What happened to make her so angry?’ he He asked what had happened to make her so
asked. angry.
‘stop/don’t speak’ I told her to stop/I told him not to speak
Modal verbs
Will Would
Can Could
Must Had to
Shall Should
May Might

In these examples, the present (am) has become the past (was), the future (will) has become the future-
in-the-past (would) and the past simple (happened) has become the past perfect (had happened). The tenses are
said to have “shifted” or “moved back” in time. Note that the 'single style' inverted commas (‘’) are commonly used
by UK natives as opposed to Americans (“”).
When the introductory verb is in the present, tenses do not change:
“She’s happy,” he says (direct speech) à he says she is happy (indirect speech)

91
Expressions of time must also be changed:

This (evening) That (evening)

Today Yesterday
These days Those days
Now Then
A week ago A week before
Last weekend The previous weekend
Here There
Next week The following week
Tomorrow The next/following day

EXERCISE: Report the questions and answers. Make the necessary changes (tense, pronouns). You can
use the following introductory verbs: to want, to wonder, to claim, to suggest, to tell, to say, to argue,
to explain, to add, to declare, etc.

1. “Should the death penalty be banned in this country?” (Oprah Winfrey)

à Oprah Winfrey (to ask)

2. “We have a system of justice that treats you better if you’re rich and guilty than if you’re poor and
innocent.” (Bryan Stevenson, founder and Executive director of Equal Justice initiative)
à Bryan Stevenson (to claim)

3. “In China, drug dealers get that thing called the death penalty. Our criminal drug dealer gets a thing
called “how about a fine?” (Donald Trump)
Donald Trump (to declare)

4. “If murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just
individuals but governments as well.” (Sister Helen Prejean, author of “Dead Man Walking”)
à Helen Prejean (to say)

5. “The death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.” (5
Supreme Court justices of the State of Washington, October 11, 2018)
à Five supreme Court justices (to state)

6. “Fix, don’t abolish the death penalty.” (The editorial team, Columbus, Dec 29 2018)
à The editorial team (to urge)

Key Terms
an advocate/a proponent: a person who publicly supports a particular cause or policy
an attorney(-at-law)/a lawyer: a person who is trained and qualified to advise people about the law and to
represent them in court, and to write legal documents
a public defender (US)/state-appointed lawyer: a lawyer who is paid by the government to defend people in
court if they cannot pay for a lawyer themselves
aggravating circumstance: any fact or circumstance that increases the severity of culpability of a criminal act
a charge: an accusation + to charge with (verb)
to convict: to find guilty of a crime
a convict: someone who has been found guilty of an offense
death row: a prison block or section for those sentenced to death
a defendant: an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law
a plaintiff: a person who brings a case against another in a court of law
DNA: the chemical in the cells of animals and plants that carries genetic information (the abbreviation for
‘deoxyribonucleic acid’)
a deterrent (effect): a measure that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something
evidence (uncountable noun): any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in
the case
a felony: a serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by
death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Crimes classified as felonies include, among others, treason, arson,
murder, rape, robbery, burglary, manslaughter, and kidnapping.
a first-degree murder: it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated. It is distinguished from second
degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and
suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.
guilty: culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing
to incarcerate, to imprison, to confine: to put somebody in prison or in another place from which they cannot
escape

92
Life Without (the Option of) Parole: the second harshest sentence after the death penalty. When sentenced to
LWOP, a convict will remain in prison for the rest of his/her life, without being offered the option of release from jail.
a miscarriage of justice: the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit
a penalty (plural: penalties): a punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense
a prosecution: the institution and conduct of legal proceedings against a person
a prosecutor: a person, especially a public official, who institutes legal proceedings against someone
recidivism: the behavior of a repeat or habitual criminal. A measurement of the rate at which offenders commit
other crimes, either by arrest or conviction baselines, after being released from incarceration + a repeat offender/a
recidivist
a retributionist: a believer in retributive justice
a ruling: the court decision on a case or any legal question
a sentence: a court judgment, especially a judicial decision of the punishment to be inflicted on one adjudged guilty
+ a life sentence (the punishment by which somebody spends the rest of their life or a very long period of time in
prison)
a stay of execution: a delay in carrying out a court order. “The prisoner was granted a stay of execution by the
Supreme Court”/ un sursis à l’exécution.
a trial: formal examination of evidence in court by a judge and often a jury, to decide if somebody accused of a
crime is guilty or not
to try (a case): a civil or criminal case is tried, in the sense of being tested for the facts. In a criminal case only, it
can be said that the court tries the defendant, that the accused is tried.

Going Further
- Into the Abyss (2011, Werner Herzog): a documentary film about two men convicted of a triple homicide that
occurred in Conroe, Texas. Michael Perry received a death sentence for the crime.
- True Crime (1999, Clint Eastwood): based on Andrew Klavan's 1995 novel of the same name. Eastwood stars
in the film as a journalist covering the execution of a death row inmate, only to discover that the convict may actually
be innocent.
- Trial By Fire (2018, Edward Zwick): tells the tragic story of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in
Texas for killing his three children after scientific evidence and expert testimony that bolstered his claims of
innocence were suppressed. Based upon David Grann's article "Trial by Fire" that appeared in The New Yorker in
2009.
- Dead Man Walking (1996, Tim Robbins): the movie adaptation of sister Helen Prejean’s true story. A nun,
while comforting a convicted killer on death row, empathizes with both the killer and his victim's families.
- The Green Mile (1999, Frank Darabont): the adaptation of Steven King’s novel. The novel and the film tell the
story of a death row corrections officer during the Great Depression and the supernatural events he witnessed there.

See also:
- Execution Day For One Of The Youngest Men On Death Row In Texas, BBC (3:17)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMQfrzFxdw
- Meeting America's Death Row Inmates: Part 1 (Prison Documentary) (45:15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tqypS2cm0g

93
 Skills

How to write an email

There are 7 steps to writing an email:

1. Email address
Remember that @ is pronounced “at” and . is pronounced “dot”.
Prefer your working email address to your personal one when you send a business email.

2. Subject line
This might be the most important in your email as it is what the recipients read first. Depending
on it, people will decide whether or not they open your email.
It should be simple, specific and catchy.

3. Greetings
Formal greetings for a business email.
Ex: Dear Mr Smith / Dear Ms Smith
Note that women are addressed as “Mrs.” /misəz/ if they are married, and with “Ms.” /miz/ when
they are not.
If you don’t know the name of the person you are writing to, use “To whom it may concern”, or
“Dear Sir/Madam”.

4. Thank the recipient

• If the person has contacted you, if you are replying to a client’s inquiry, you should begin
with a line of thanks: “Thank you for contacting this company”.
• If someone has replied to one of your emails, do not forget to say: “Thank you for your
prompt reply”, or “Thank you for getting back to me”.
> By thanking the reader, you will put him/her at ease and you will appear more polite.
(If you are starting the email conversation you do not have to thank the recipient.)

5. State your purpose

Why do you write this email?
• I am writing to enquire about…
• I am writing in reference to/regarding…
• I am contacting you as…

6. Closing remark
Before you end your email, it is polite to thank your reader one more time and add some polite
closing remark:
• Thank you for your patience and cooperation
• Thank you for your consideration

Follow up with
• If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to let me know.
and
• I look forward to hearing from you.
Finish with a closing:
• Best Regards
• Sincerely
• Take care / Thank you / Have a nice day (> less formal)
Do not forget to sign your email!

7. Proofreading: Always proofread your email!

94
Do not forget:
Save people’s time (and your own):
- Keep your email specific and concise
- Be clear and precise: people want to read emails quickly, so keep your sentences short.
- Pay careful attention to grammar, spelling and punctuation so that you present a professional
image of yourself and your company.
- Split the body of your email into several paragraphs, based on the topic you raise.
- You can use bullet-points to make it easy to read.

Dos and don’ts

• Always check you have got the right name in the 'To' box. And make sure your email only
goes to the people who need to read it. Remember that if you reply to all, then everyone
will get your email.
• This sounds obvious, but if you need to send files, do not forget to attach them! A word of
advice – attach the file you want to send before you start writing. That way, you cannot
forget to attach it!
• Do not use capital letters. If you write “CAN YOU LET ME KNOW THIS WEEK?” you are
basically shouting at your reader. They will think you are very rude.
• Use words, not smileys!
• Use formal English: no smileys, no contracted forms, no slang.
• Remember months and weekdays take a capital letter (Monday, September…)
• Remember to write the time properly: 14h05 > 2:05pm
• How to write the date: 21 August 1989, 4 February 2005, 14 July 1996 – 21st August 1989,
4th February 2005

Exercises

1. Place these phrases into the correct column:

Yours sincerely, Love, Lots of love, Yours cordially, Take care, Keep cool, Respectfully, Best, Bye, Xxx,
Best regards, Yours faithfully, xoxo, Cheers, Cheerio, Best wishes, Kind regards

Formal Informal

2. Read the email and underline what you find is inappropriate for a formal letter and
explain why.

from thugnumber1@gmail.com
to johnsmith@business.com
Hi boss!
We're gonna have a meeting on the current problems with the computer systems and I'd appreciate it if you could
come. Having somebody like yourself there from the legal department is kinda important because of the 4 problems
we've had with the loss of customer data. The meeting will take place next thursday at 14h in meeting room 3 in
the Corley Building in Leeds. If there's anything you would like to discuss in the meeting, send it to me by email
asap and I'll include it in the meeting's agenda. LET ME KNOW as soon as possible if you can attend. It’s pretty
important.
See you l8r!
Alec Boldwin
IT Project Manager

3. Write an email to your Head of Department to explain why you cannot attend a meeting.

95
 Numbers

1. Saying / Pronouncing numbers – Write the following numbers in letters:

300: ……………………………………………………………………………………
4,000: ………………………………………………………………………………….
100,000: ……………………………………………………………………………….
5,000,000: ……………………………………………………………………………..
428,193: ………………………………………………………………………………..
1,000,000,000: …………………………………………………………………………

Notes:
- There is no “s” for the plural after hundred, thousand, million, and billion when they are part of a
number. On their own, they can be plural: thousands of people.
- In the English-speaking world, it is common to use commas every three decimal places in numbers
of four or more digits, counting right to left. The commas are written but not said.
- We describe three-digit numbers in hundreds, then tens. Generally, in British English we usually
connect large numbers with double- or single-digit figures with and, but in American English and
is not used. Note that hundreds, thousands and millions are not connected to each other with and,
though.

How to say 0
There are several ways to pronounce the number 0, used in different contexts. These pronunciations
apply to American English.

Pronunciation Usage
Zero Used to read the number by itself, in reading decimals, percentages,
and phone numbers, and in some fixed expressions.
O (the letter) Used to read years, addresses, times and departures.
Nil Used to report sports scores

2. Saying / Pronouncing years – Write the following years in letters:

2019: ………………………………………………………………………………
2008: ………………………………………………………………………………
2000: ………………………………………………………………………………
1984: ………………………………………………………………………………
1908: ………………………………………………………………………………
1900: ………………………………………………………………………………
1600: ………………………………………………………………………………
3000 BC: …………………………………………………………………………..

96
 Reading the news
A) Objectives
- Make the most out of available technology.
- Know the main news outlets in the Anglosphere.
- Understand the importance of what’s « outside » the article.
- Understand the importance of the notions of objectivity and bias.

1) Make the most out of available technology

Reading the news is no longer (only) about buying an actual newspaper. Your smartphone/tablet/ computer allow
you to read the news instantaneously.

Advice:
- Be careful with the sources you pick. Not all websites are created equal.
- Use commuting time. For instance, replace ten minutes of Facebook with ten minutes of news reading (you’ll be
fine, I promise).

3) Know the main news outlets in the Anglosphere.

a) The United States

- The Wall Street Journal
Most sold newspapers in the US (as of May - The Chicago Tribune
2016, source: cision.com): - National Review
1. USA Today - The Weekly Standard
2. The New York Times
3. The Wall Street Journal Some famous Liberal (left-wing) American
4. Los Angeles Times newspapers:
5. New York Post - The New York Times
- The Boston Globe
Some famous Conservative (right-wing) - The Washington Post
American newspapers: - The Atlantic
- The New York Post - The Nation

b) The United Kingdom

Some famous right-wing British newspapers:
Most sold newspapers in the UK (as of March - The Daily Telegraph
2016, source: statista.com): - Daily Mail
1. Daily Mail
2. The Sun Some famous left-wing British newspapers:
3. Daily Mirror - The Guardian
4. The Guardian - The Independent
5. The Daily Telegraph - The Daily Mirror

3) Understand the importance of what’s “outside” the article.

- Title: a good title should act as a mini summary of the article itself. You should be able to know what the article is
about with the title alone.
- Possible subtitle(s): can help you understand the different facets of the topic being addressed.
- Author: Do you know him? Is he even mentioned? Name or only initials?
- Date: important to have an idea of how much time separates the article from the facts being addressed: Is it
immediate journalism? Or does it have more historical perspective?

4) Understand the importance of the notions of objectivity and bias.

Forget about « true objectivity », whatever that’s supposed to mean. Neutrality and objectivity are supposed to be
the cornerstones of journalism. Journalists are supposed to describe the facts and let those who read them form
their own opinion. However, true and complete objectivity is like Santa Claus: many people talk about it, nobody
has actually seen it. This does not necessarily mean that journalists are not doing their job properly. True objectivity
is extremely difficult to achieve, because the human mind cannot detach itself from past experiences and ideas when
it treats new information. Even when it comes to stating facts, each individual is going to do it with his own words
and his own way of explaining things. Two individuals trying to state the same facts as objectively and honestly as
possible would almost certainly come up with two slightly different versions of what actually happened. Each person
has his/her own vocabulary and his/her own way of using language, and these unavoidable differences between
individuals are necessarily going to have an impact on the way any article is written. The meaning a journalist gives
to one particular word might even be different from the meaning you, the reader, give that word.

97
B) Reading the news – understanding the headlines

I. Understanding the headlines: The Language of Headlines

Short Words
Headlines often use very short words to make an impact. These are sometimes violent words e.g., Thugs battle. A
thug is a violent person and a battle is a fight (it is a noun and a verb). This headline could also read Some thugs
have been fighting, however this does not have the same impact as the short headline above.

Omitted Words
Headlines often don't include verbs and articles, for example, More MP resignations over expenses row. If we put
this into spoken English then the sentence would read More MPs have resigned over the row about expenses. This
means that Members of Parliament have left their jobs because of the disagreements over what they should be able
to claim on expenses. Another example would be New flood alert. This means that there have been warnings that
there could be more flooding.

Word Play
A key part of newspaper language is word play. Words with two different meanings in English can be used in an
amusing and entertaining way. This is called a pun. For example, Short-staffed? That's fine by Mr. Sarkozy. This
headline plays with the word short. Short-staffed means that there are not enough staff to do the job. However, this
article refers to the fact that during a visit to a factory all the staff he was introduced to were short because he is
only 1.7m! Another example would be Police found drunk in street. This headline plays with the word drunk. One
meaning is that the Police were found drunk in the street. The second meaning is that the Police found a drunk man
in the street.

Noun Strings
It is also common to have a row of nouns in a headline. For example, Prime Minister's traffic headache. This means
that the Prime Minister has had some sort of problem with traffic.
Another example would be Teenage pregnancy increase. This means that there has been an increase in teenage
pregnancy.

Alliteration
Alliteration is when a sound is repeated. It is often used in poetry as well as newspapers. Newspapers use it to
attract the eye and make it more memorable.
For example, Media makes Madonna Mad. The 'm' is repeated 4 times.

Ambiguous
Headlines are often ambiguous making the reader look at the article. If we take the above headline the word 'mad'
is ambiguous because it could mean insane or it could mean very angry. Also, the word drunk is ambiguous in the
word play example above.

Verb Changes
Verbs are often changed in headlines. The simple tense is used instead of the continuous or perfect tense and the
infinitive is used for the future. For example, Brown resigns. This is used instead of Brown has resigned.

II. Exercises

1. Matching: New York Times Article Summary Game

Directions: Each of the headlines and summaries come from NYTimes.com the week of Sept. 23 – 27, 2013. Match
them by putting the number of the summary in the blank in front of the headline you think fits best.

Headlines:
_____ a. "Ground Gives Way, and a Louisiana Town Struggles to Find Its Footing"
_____ b. "Peacock Feet
_____ c. "Day Devoted to Hoisting Guinness Starts to Leave a Bitter Taste"
_____ d. "Scraping Away the Decades"
_____ e. "To Renovate or Not to Renovate?"
_____ f. "An Arm-Twister in the Oval Office"
_____ g. "Rutgers Updates Its Anthem to Include Women"
_____ h. "Roll Over? Fat Chance"

Summaries:
1. Somewhere under all the ugly 20th-century additions was the simple 1850s-era home two Brooklyn designers
had been searching for.
2. Bryan Cranston is Lyndon B. Johnson in “All the Way,” a play set immediately after President Kennedy’s
assassination.
3. The university is the latest formerly all-male institution to bring its alma mater in line with its new demographics.

98
4. Critics say Arthur’s Day, which began in 2009, is nothing but an excuse for binge drinking.
5. Almost nothing in Bayou Corne has been the same since a voracious sinkhole opened up in 2012, and a year later
it’s still growing, swallowing trees and belching methane.
6. More than half the dogs in America are overweight, giving rise to diet and exercise programs.
7. Is it more effective to cloak Shakespearean text in contemporary imagery, or to hew to a more “classical” line?
8. View embellished sneakers from Pierre Hardy, Christian Louboutin, Maison Martin Margiela and more.

2. Read the following first paragraphs and think of an appropriate title for each one.

1. TITLE: ____________________________________________________________________
It’s that time of year again! Lots of expense, your patience tried to its utmost limits thanks to being in such close
proximity to your family, over-eating and over-drinking - perhaps over-indulging generally - receiving presents you
don’t really want and seeing relatives you don’t really want to see. They get wheeled out every year for a free meal
and a sherry and drive you mad with their complaints. How to avoid all this? Do something different - go on holiday
and let someone else take the strain.

2. TITLE: ____________________________________________________________________
The oldest known disease to man, and the first to be identified, is on the increase. It is now prevalent in twenty-four
countries, and still doctors are unsure what causes leprosy. There is a general consensus that it could be contracted
through the respiratory system, but as yet there is no solid evidence. On the other hand, it could be spread by touch.
Leprosy is curable if detected in the early stages, but what are the symptoms?

3. TITLE: ____________________________________________________________________
The joy of writing a long, newsy letter to a friend, a short thank-you note or even a letter of complaint, seems to
have disappeared nowadays. People just pick up the phone, fax or send an e-mail instead of composing something
in their own handwriting, which is much more appreciated by the person receiving it. It shows thought, care and
consideration but people, or their way of life, are changing.

4. TITLE: ____________________________________________________________________
Dieting seems to have become a way of life for many people, particularly women. It is said that at any one time
three out of four people are on a diet, convinced that this is the magic formula, and that they will finally look like
that model on the television they so envy. What they do not seem to realise is that they might well lose weight but
will inevitably put it all back on - often more weight than they lost in the first place. The whole exercise is futile, and
people never seem to realise that to lose weight permanently, one needs to change one’s entire eating lifestyle.

5. TITLE: __________________________________________________________________
Learning another language is not an easy process - different word order, irregular verbs, those tricky prepositions
and difficult to pronounce, strange looking vocabulary. There are also many methods on offer to accomplish this feat
- so many in fact, that it can become confusing and hard to decide which is the best way for you. Courses on cassette,
evening classes, private lessons, a language school, move to the country of the target language (an extreme method,
perhaps), a correspondence course or a pen friend - the list is endless and it is like a jungle trying to decide what to
try.

99
 Debating
1) What is debating?

A debate is a structured argument. Two sides speak alternately for and against a particular contention
usually based on a topical issue. Unlike the arguments you might have with your family or friends
however, each person is allocated a time they are allowed to speak for and any interjections are carefully
controlled. The subject of the dispute is often prearranged so you may find yourself having to support
opinions with which you do not normally agree. You also have to argue as part of a team, being careful
not to contradict what others on your side have said.

2) Why debate?

It is an excellent way of improving speaking skills and is particularly helpful in providing experience in
developing a convincing argument. Those of you who are forced to argue against your natural point of
view realize that arguments, like coins, always have at least two sides.

3) The basic debating skills

-Style: Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part of
debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material in a confident
and persuasive way.
-Speed: It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to say
what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood.
-Tone: Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Listening to one tone for an entire
presentation is boring.
-Volume: Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout
through every debate regardless of context. There is absolutely no need speak any more loudly than
the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting does not win
debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to hear you.
-Clarity: The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. The
main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the “stream of thought” which
is keeping them going. It is also important to keep it simple. While long words may make you sound
clever, they may also make you incomprehensible.
-Use of notes and eye contact: Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be
effective. There is absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. Of course, notes should never
become obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from
verbatim. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under each.
When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate sheet of paper
so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and then transfer a rough outline
onto the notes you will actually be using.
Eye contact with the audience is very important but keep shifting your gaze. No one likes to be stared
at.

4) Content

Content is what you actually say in the debate. The arguments used to develop your own side’s case and
rebut the opposite side’s.
The final logistics of how long you will be debating, how many people will be in your group,
and how the debate will unfold (ie: which team speaks first etc.), will all be decided by your
tutorial leader.

Example of Debating

I.) The Motion: the motion is the subject of the debate. It is always defended, or supported, by the
Government, and opposed by the Opposition Party. An example of a general motion is “This House
Believes The Future Will Be Bright”. An example of a more specific motion, based on current events, is
“This House Would Teach Creationism in Public Schools”. This House means The Government.

100
II.) The Composition of the Two Teams: The Government vs. The Opposition. There are 5 members
of each team.

Government Opposition
1) Prime Minister 1) Leader of the Opposition
2) First Speaker 2) First Speaker
3) Second Speaker 3) Second Speaker
4) Third Speaker 4) Third Speaker
5) Whip 5) Whip

III.) Basic Procedure

The motion will be announced at least one week before the debate so that the teams have time to prepare.
The members of the teams will be chosen. Each speaker will speak for 3 to 4 minutes. Notes are allowed,
but good public speakers do not just read! They communicate! Team members should consult together
to distribute roles and talking points. The prime minister is always the first to speak. Next, the leader of
the Opposition. The teams take turns speaking.

IV.) Role of the first and last speakers

The Prime Minister introduces the motion, and defines the different elements of it. He or she also
introduces the other members of the team and the points they will address. He or She tries to make a
strong first impression explaining in general and inspiring terms why they support the motion.
The Leader of the Opposition must respond to what the Prime Minister said. He or She will have a
different definition for the elements of the motion. He or She will introduce the team and explain why
they oppose the motion, in general terms.
The Whip must listen carefully to the arguments of the other team. The role of the Whip is to sum up
the debate, but not in a general way. He or She must show the weaknesses of the arguments of the
other team, while proving that his or her own team’s arguments were better, more coherent, more
convincing. Put simply, destroy the other team!

V. Interaction
a) Points of Information are the opportunity for the opposing team to ask questions of the person
speaking. The person must raise his or her hand or stand up and say “On that point, Sir or Madame” or
“Point of Information” before asking the question. Ex. “What does creationism have to do with objective
truth?” The speaker should try to answer one or two questions briefly, i.e. 20 seconds. N.B. The first
minute of a speech is protected time in which points of information are not yet allowed.
b) Rebuttal means to refute or directly disprove the arguments of the other team. If you don’t challenge
an argument then it remains believable. Each speaker (except the Prime Minister) should first rebut
specific elements of the previous speaker’s arguments before beginning his or her prepared speech.
c.) Spontaneous interaction or debate may be allowed between members of the two teams, however,
the Speaker of the House (probably the teacher) may ask for order. If there is class time left after the
formal debate why not have direct confrontational debate?

VI. The Jury will decide who won the debate and will explain the reasons. It will be made up of students
from the class.

VII. Judging Criteria

1) Presentation (structure, coherence, public speaking qualities)
2) Arguments (logic, coherence, relevance, convincing, quality of the arguments, superficial or
researched and developed?)
3) Star Quality (personal charisma, communication with the audience, humor, emotion)
4) Interaction (points of information, rebuttal…)

101
 Useful phrases for debating

1. Asking about or for an opinion

Could you tell me...? What do you think about/of...?

What’s your opinion about...? Do you think/feel...?
How do you feel about...? May I ask you...?

2. Asking for an explanation

Could you explain to me...? Could someone please tell me...?

Just tell me the reason why? I don’t really understand...?
I just don’t see why/what/how... Are you saying that...?
What do you mean by that? I beg your pardon?
I didn’t quite get that. Excuse me, did you say that...?

3. Giving your opinion

In my opinion/view... If you ask me...

As far as I can see/I’m concerned...
I have the/a feeling that...
Well, I’d say...
You can take it from me that...
What we have to decide is...
It’s a fact that...
The way/As I see it
Let me put it this/another way...
Sorry to interrupt you, but...
Personally (speaking) I think...
My view/point of view is that...
What I actually meant was...
It seems to me that...
I think/feel/reckon/believe...
If you want my opinion...
First of all, /To start with I’d like to point out...
There can be no doubt that...
Nobody will deny that...
Everyone knows...
Let’s get this clear (first)...
The point I’m trying to make is...
I’m absolutely convinced that...
The way I look at/see it is this

4. Giving an explanation

Look, it’s like this: What I mean is...

The reason for this is... The main problem is...
Just let me explain... Well, the reason is...
Well, the thing is... Above all we must keep in mind that...

5. Agreeing with an opinion

I (quite) agree. I agree completely/entirely.

I couldn’t agree (with you) more. I entirely/completely agree with you on that.
That’s true/right. That’s just it.
Quite/Exactly/Precisely/Right/Certainly/Definitely You’re quite/so right.
I think so, too. I don’t think so either.
That’s just my feeling/opinion. That’s just how I see it/feel about it, too.
That’s a very good/important point. You’ve got a good point there.
Yes, of course/definitely/absolutely Marvelous.
That’s exactly what I mean/say. Yes, that’s obvious.
That’s exactly how I see it. That’s what I think
How very true. So do I/So am I
Yes, indeed. I’m all in favor of what you’ve been saying.

6. Qualified agreement

Yes, perhaps, but .... Yes, possibly, although...

Yes, but on the other hand... Yes, up to a point.
I agree up to a certain point, but... Yes, in a way.
Maybe, I suppose so. Well, it depends.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that... I see what you mean, but I think that’s not the whole story

102
 You may be right there.
7. Polite disagreement
I disagree (with you), I’m afraid.
I don’t quite agree there.
I’m not (quite) so sure (really).
Do you really think so/believe that?
Well, that’s one way of looking at it, (but)
You can’t really mean that.
I wouldn’t say so.
I don’t think you’re right/that’s right.
I don’t want to argue with you, but ....
Are you seriously suggesting that ...?
8. Making a complaint
I can’t quite understand how/why
I’m disappointed with
It really is terrible/ridiculous that
Forgive me for mentioning it, but ....
Do you realize that ....?
I’m disappointed to hear that.
Something ought to be done about it.
Can’t something be done to/about ....
9. Reacting to a complaint
I’m (awfully) sorry to hear that
Well, there’s nothing we can do about that
What do you expect us/me to do?
I’m sorry you should take it that way.
10. Strong disagreement
I doubt that very much
Don’t you dare say so!
Bloody hell, no!
You’re pulling my leg!
That doesn’t convince me at all.
I’ve never heard of such a thing.
You can’t be serious!
That’s not correct
You don’t understand.
I don’t think so, really!
That’s out of the question
I can’t accept your view, that ....
I’m afraid, I can’t agree with you there
Really?
How stupid can you get?
That’s (simply) not true!
Surely, you’re not serious, are you?
You can’t be serious!
I doubt if ...
I don’t agree with you at all.
Oh, come on, you must be joking/kidding!
That’s not how I see it
That’s no excuse
That doesn’t make sense to me
You’re hopeless/wrong
I think you got that wrong
For heaven’s sake!
Yes, but there’s also another aspect to consider
No, I really can’t agree, I’m afraid.
I’m not so certain/at all sure if that’s true/correct
I’m sorry I can’t agree.
I’m not convinced that ....
Well, I have my doubts about that
You don’t really mean that, do you?
I don’t think so.
Surely you don’t mean that?
I can’t go all the way with you on that point.
I have my problems with what you’re saying
I’ve come to complain about ...
I’m fed up with ....
I’m sorry I have to say this, but ....
That’s what I want to know.
Are you aware that ....?
What are you going to do about it?
Look, I really must protest about ....
I really must apologize for this.
This isn’t my/our fault, you know.
I’ll find out what has happened
I'll see what I can do.
I think you got that wrong
Rubbish!
Shame on you!
On the contrary!
You’re contradicting yourself.
You’re wrong, you know.
It’s not like that at all!
You’re contradicting yourself
I’m afraid, I don’t think you quite understand.
That’s not fair!
I can’t believe that I’m afraid
Do you really think that’s a good idea?
Well, you would, wouldn’t you?
Don’t be silly/stupid!
What a silly/stupid thing to say!
I don’t think, you can say ....
I doubt it/that very much
Oh, come on, think about what you’ve just said!
I’ve got my doubts about that.
I disagree entirely/completely.
That’s out of the question
It’s not as simple as that!
I believe you’re mistaken
Let’s be sensible about this
You won’t listen to reason
I’m not impressed
Well that’s one way of looking at it, but
103
 Phonetics

Source: http://www.phonemicchart.com/ (Another chart with “American” vowels is also available on this website)

If you would like to hear the corresponding sounds, you can go to the following website:
https://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/phonemic-chart-ia.htm

104