Lesson Plan

Constitutional Issues: Civil Liberties during War

Copyright © 2006 Densho 1416 S Jackson Seattle, WA 98144 Phone: 206.320.0095 Website: www.densho.org Email: [email protected]

v20060630-1

Acknowledgements and Notes The website Causes of the Incarceration (www.densho.org/causes) and the lesson Civil Liberties during War are made possible by a grant from the Washington State Civil Liberties Public Education Program. This lesson is designed to closely align with Washington State’s Essential Academic Learning Requirements as measured by a Social Studies Classroom Based Assessment (CBA) model. The model used for this lesson is: Category: Civics Level: High School Topic: Constitutional Issues For more information about this Classroom Based Assessment model, go to: http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/WASL/socialstudies/CBAs/HS-ConstitutionalIssuesCBA.pdf. Densho: the Japanese American Legacy Project developed this lesson. Densho is a Japanese term meaning "to pass on to the next generation," or to leave a legacy. Our mission is to preserve the testimonies of Japanese Americans who were unjustly incarcerated during World War II. We collect and offer their stories in a manner that reflects our deep regard for who they are and what they endured. Using digital technology, Densho provides access to personal accounts, historical documents and photographs, and teacher resources to explore principles of democracy and promote equal justice. We seek to educate young people and inspire them to act in defense of liberty and the highest values of our country. Densho presents a thorough accounting of what happened to Japanese Americans during a time of war and in doing so contributes to the current debate about civil liberties during times of national emergency. It is our conviction and hope that an informed citizenry, aware of the human costs and consequences of the violation of the rights of the few, will be better equipped to protect the civil rights of all. Contact Information www.densho.org [email protected] 1416 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington USA 98144-2023 206.320.0095 206.320.0098 fax

1

Connection to Washington State Social Studies Classroom Based Assessments (CBAs) Bridging Document Step-by-Step Alignment of the High School Classroom Based Assessment model “Constitutional Issues” and the lesson Civil Liberties during War For the CBA, students are The Civil Liberties during War lesson aligns itself with the asked to develop a essential academic learning requirements of the “Constitutional reasoned position on a Issues” CBA model in the following manner: constitutional issue by: ! Making a connection ! Students begin with a discussion of democratic ideals and between the issue constitutional principles. These concepts are then examined and a democratic in the context of the incarceration of Japanese Americans ideal or during World War II. Students then identify the core values constitutional that come with a specific point of view around a principle controversial issue. ! Supporting the ! Students will identify evidence that supports their assigned reasons for the point of view. The lesson will provide primary and position with secondary sources, along with suggested resources for accurate evidence further research. ! Evaluating multiple ! The Town Meeting simulation is designed for students to points of view hear, discuss, and debate different points of view. Individual groups will be assigned to articulate a particular point of view around a controversial issue. ! Explaining how ! The student will be provided with materials and suggested court cases and/or resources to research court cases and government policies government policies that may provide precedents for explaining a particular point affects the rights of view. In particular, a presidential executive order (EO involved in the issue 9066) and a U.S. Supreme Court case (Korematsu v. U.S.) are examined. ! Analyzing how ! The major focus of this lesson is the protection of individual individual rights can rights during a time when the security and protection of the be balanced with the country is threatened. common good

2

Contents – Civil Liberties during War

Acknowledgements and Notes………………………………………………………………...1 Connection to Washington State Standards-Bridging Document……………….…………2 Contents………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Teacher Instructions……………………………………………………………………….…4-8 Reading – Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration….................................……9-12 Handout #1 – Values Exercise……………………………………………………………….13 Handout #2 - Group Role Playing Instructions……………….……………………...…14-21 Handout #3 – Additional Resources…….……………………………………………..……22 Handout #4 – Graphic Organizer for Town Meeting Simulation………………………….23 Handout #5 – Persuasive Paper Assignment and Checklist…..................................24-26 Handout #6 – Persuasive Paper Rubric…………………………………………………….27

3

Teacher Instructions

Page 1 of 5

Introduction for Teachers The intent of this lesson is to stimulate dialogue and help students realize the complexities of decisions that individuals, local governments, and national governments have to make. The positions of many interest groups must be heard and considered, meaning that decision-making becomes an exercise in choosing among options that represent conflicting values or worldviews. The point of the exercise is not the vote that takes place during the exercise, but the critical thinking and communication that happen along the way. Town meetings at one time occurred regularly in towns and villages within the United States. At these meetings some of the best aspects of democracy were practiced. The town meeting format helps students better understand the complexity of constitutional issues that balance freedom, security, and the many and varied interests of those who make up this country. The lesson revolves around a town meeting simulation where students representing various interest groups consider a hypothetical scenario where in the months following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to increase surveillance within the United States and to expand their ability to detain suspicious individuals. The proposals to be discussed are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and emails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. To encourage students to consider a historical perspective, the organizer of the town meeting is Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, who has called for the forum to help him decide how to vote on these proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. As part of the lesson, students will read about the incarceration of Japanese Americans in the 1940s.

4

Teacher Instructions

Page 2 of 5

Notes about this Lesson Suggested Two-Day Lesson Plan On the first day, students start with the Values Exercise, which requires them to prioritize democratic ideals. Next the students examine the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II and how these democratic ideals worked. The first day ends with students forming small groups and preparing for the Town Meeting simulation. On the second day, students participate in the Town Meeting simulation. After the simulation, the students discuss the exercise. Time Management Time management will be important during the Town Meeting simulation. A minimum of 45-50 minutes is needed for the group presentations, discussion, vote, and post-simulation discussion on day two. Student groups should be ready when class begins and there should be quick transitions from group to group. Time limits should be established and enforced.

Assessing Student Achievement Group Assignment A goal of this unit is to encourage group cooperation. It is suggested that group members receive the same grade for the group assignment and that they are told in advance of this policy. Group members should be encouraged to work together to achieve better results. Individual Student Assignment After the simulated town meeting and discussion, students are asked to write a paper expressing their personal view on the issue of whether or not to increase surveillance and detention of suspected individuals. The “Persuasive Paper Rubric” is provided as a guideline for you and the student on how the paper will be graded. Student Self-Evaluation It is recommended that students complete self-evaluations at the end of the lesson. This gives students an opportunity to be part of the assessment process and it also gives the teacher a perspective on what the student learned and the small group dynamics. The teacher should develop questions for the students to answer in the self-evaluation. Students should be as specific and concrete as possible with their answers. Below are some sample questions. Sample Student Self Evaluation Questions: ! What did you learn? ! How well did you learn it? ! What do you want to learn next about the topics discussed in this lesson? ! What was most satisfying about working in a group? ! What was most frustrating about working in a group? ! How did you contribute to your group during this project?

5

Teacher Instructions

Page 3 of 5

Day One – Values Exercise, Japanese American Incarceration Discussion, Town Meeting Preparation Objectives ! ! !

Students will examine concepts of democratic ideals and constitutional principles. Students will discuss the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII. Students will work cooperatively in a group to create an effective presentation.

Homework Reading and Discussion Questions: ! Reading - Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration. This should be passed out to students several days before Day One of this lesson. Handouts: ! Handout #1 - Values Exercise ! Handout #2 - Group Role Playing Instructions ! Handout #3 - Additional Resources In the Classroom: 1. Values Exercise [15 minutes] Give each student Handout #1 - Values Exercise. Ask each student to list democratic ideals in the order they consider most important. Have them repeat this process for constitutional principles. After everyone finishes, discuss what it was like to prioritize these concepts. You may ask a few students to share their lists or the one or two most important core values. The point of the exercise is to explore the difficulty of prioritizing these concepts and how different people will have different priorities. You may find that these words mean different things to different students making the discussion of the exercise even more challenging. 2. Homework Reading and Study Guide Questions [15 minutes] Discuss the questions from Reading - Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration. These materials provide a historical example for students to consider as they are doing the Town Meeting simulation. 3. Forming Role Playing Groups [15 minutes] Introduce students to the basic scenario described in the “Group Role Playing Instructions” regarding the government’s intentions. Form eight groups of three students. This lesson is designed for twenty-four students. For larger classes, either add more groups or add more students per group. For smaller classes, either fewer groups can be formed or have fewer students per group. If there is a point of view that you and your students think should be represented, add it or substitute it for an existing one that seems less relevant or crucial. Distribute a different Handout #2 - Group Role Playing Instructions to each of the groups. Tell students that each group will give a one-minute presentation during the next classroom session and that the groups should follow the instructions in the handout, while working together to prepare the presentation. Also, give each group Handout #3 - Additional Resources to help them identify evidence for their presentation. Homework: Students should complete preparations for the Town Meeting simulation. 6

Teacher Instructions

Page 4 of 5

Day Two –Town Meeting Simulation and Discussion Objectives: ! Students will present, explore, debate, and evaluate multiple perspectives of U.S. policy. ! Students will link democratic ideals to different perspectives. ! Students will cooperate with classmates in simulating a town meeting. ! Students will examine their own views on the town meeting topics. Handouts: ! Handout #4 - Graphic Organizer for Town Meeting Simulation ! Handout #5 - Persuasive Paper Assignment and Checklist ! Handout #6 - Persuasive Paper Rubric Teacher Role During the Town Meeting Simulation: You play the moderator. By way of introduction, you identify yourself as a staff member for Senator Inouye who is holding this meeting to help him decide how to vote on the proposals. The proposals to be discussed are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to temporarily detain for up to 6 months, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations or efforts, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. The group will discuss and debate these proposals. They will then vote (from the perspective of their assigned point of view) on whether to support or reject each proposal. Remind students that they will represent the point of view they have been assigned, even though it might not be their own point of view. Tell them that their ability to faithfully represent their assigned roles will allow the group to understand the many sides to the issue. This activity can become heated as it focuses on a real issue that the students have strong feelings about. It is important to remind students that they can make strong, emotional statements if they feel so moved, but the statements must be based on evidence and they may not attack the people who disagree with them. As moderator, notice if some groups are talking a great deal. It is important to hear from every group to ensure that the class is considering all relevant information as they make a difficult decision. You should support those who have not entered the conversation and encourage them to do so. It’s okay to ask those who have spoken a great deal to let others into the conversation. The group representing the Bush Administration makes the first statement; laying out the administration’s position and helping others understand what they are debating.

7

Teacher Instructions

Page 5 of 5

Day Two –Town Meeting Simulation and Discussion (continued) In the Classroom: 1. Group Presentations [12 minutes] Distribute to each student Handout #4 - Graphic Organizer for Town Meeting Simulation for students to use during each presentation. Each group presents their oneminute opening statement without any discussion or response from other groups. Go around the entire class (taking care to avoid having all on one side of the question go in order before hearing from the other side). 2. Discussion Representing their Assigned Point of View [12 minutes] After all of the opening statements are made, anyone at the meeting can speak. Remind the speaker to identify the role he or she is playing (“I represent a U.S. soldier training to fight in Iraq.”), and limit their speaking to about one minute in order to hear from as many people as possible. Statements or questions may be addressed to particular individuals in the class in response to either their opening statements or comments made during discussion (“You said that you are in favor of detainment, but what about…”). It is absolutely acceptable to disagree with ideas expressed. It is absolutely not acceptable to attack the person who makes the statement or expresses the idea. 3. Take the vote and tabulate the results [5 minutes] At the end of the ten- to fifteen-minute discussion, ask for overlooked points and final thoughts, and then give about thirty seconds for the students to consider how they will vote, still representing their assigned point of view. 4. Discussion Representing their Own Point of View [10 minutes] Discuss the meeting you just held (students are again themselves, no longer playing their roles). Have them focus on the following questions: ! What were the strongest arguments they heard in the town meeting? What were the most compelling or effective reasons for voting one way or another? ! Which arguments made them reconsider their own positions (not the one they were representing, but their own positions)? What did they hear that made them question it? ! How would they represent their assigned position differently if they were to approach the exercise again? ! What is their current understanding of the issue now that you have gone through this exercise? What questions do they still have? What do they want to know more about, and how might they go about finding that information? 5. Wrap-up and Paper [5 minutes] 6. Wrap up the discussion and assign the persuasive paper. Distribute to each student Handout #5 - Persuasive Paper Assignment and Checklist and Handout #6 Persuasive Paper Rubric. Homework: ! Have the students write a persuasive position paper that argues their own position on this topic. This paper should use evidence and information from the student’s own research and from the Town Meeting simulation. 8

Reading and Discussion Questions Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration

Page 1 of 4

On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked U.S. military bases in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. More than 3,500 servicemen were killed or wounded. The next day, the United States declared war on Japan and entered World War II. The attack on Pearl Harbor shocked and angered many Americans. It also caused widespread fear that the West Coast of the United States was vulnerable to further attack. Some of this fear and anger was targeted towards the 120,000 Japanese Americans on the West Coast and the 160,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii. Newspapers published false stories about spying and sabotage by Japanese Americans, promoting an atmosphere of hatred and paranoia. Yet, no person of Japanese ancestry in the United States, Hawaii, or Alaska was ever charged or convicted of espionage or sabotage. Unfortunately, federal officials who knew the facts did nothing to counteract the growing negative public opinion against people of Japanese ancestry. Executive Order 9066 A Presidential Decision to Exclude on the Basis of Race As the U.S. entered World War II, many military heads, political leaders, and the press insisted that all individuals of Japanese ancestry -- from infants to elders -- were inherently untrustworthy and potentially disloyal and dangerous. Although offering no evidence of real or potential subversive activity, the War Department urged that the entire population of Japanese Americans on the West Coast be removed by reason of military necessity. The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become “Americanized” the racial strains are undiluted. —General John L. DeWitt, Military Commander Western Command On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which authorized military commanders to exclude any person from any area. Congress supported the Executive Order by passing Public Law 77-503, which authorized a prison term and fine for a civilian convicted of violating a military order. General DeWitt then issued over 100 military orders that applied only to civilians of Japanese ancestry living in the West Coast states. First, these orders established a curfew, prohibiting Japanese Americans from being outside from 8 P.M. to 6 A.M.. Next, Japanese Americans were restricted from traveling beyond a short distance from their homes. Finally, in March, 1942, DeWitt ordered that all persons of Japanese ancestry would go to temporary detention camps called “assembly centers” and then later to more permanent incarceration camps. Approximately 120,000 were affected by these orders. During the mass removal and incarceration, a few individuals challenged the U.S. government’s rationale of military necessity. It didn’t make sense that infants, children, the elderly and sick were all removed from their homes and incarcerated, even though they

9

Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration

Page 2 of 4

posed no threat. It was also inconsistent with the government's own reports from the FBI, Office of Naval Intelligence, and Federal Communications Commission that there was no evidence of spying or sabotage, and that Japanese Americans were loyal to the United States. Furthermore, the situation in Hawaii also contradicted the government’s military necessity argument. The 160,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not subjected to mass incarceration, even though Hawaii was 3,000 miles closer to Japan and a more likely target than the West Coast. Contrary to being a threat, military commanders in Hawaii believed that Japanese Americans were loyal to the U.S. and also critical to the defense of the islands. The decision to allow the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans did not come under much public scrutiny. The United States was at war and military leaders were given expansive power and influence. Attorney General Francis Biddle, a member of President Roosevelt’s cabinet, raised questions about the constitutionality of the exclusion orders, but his objections were overruled by the President. Discussion Questions: ! Why did military leaders want Japanese Americans removed from the West Coast? ! Why did some people oppose this action? ! Why do you think President Roosevelt decided to issue Executive Order 9066? Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of Excluding Japanese Americans from the West Coast In 1942, almost all Japanese Americans on the West Coast had followed the government orders, which forced them to leave their homes and live under armed guard in incarceration camps. The incarcerated Japanese Americans had not received trials or been convicted of crimes. They were incarcerated solely on the basis of their ancestry. Very few individuals or groups publicly questioned the government's actions. Those who did risked being labeled "disloyal." Fred Korematsu was one of the few who decided to disobey the government orders. He was tried and convicted of violating the exclusion orders when he refused to report to the Tanforan “assembly center” and instead remained in his hometown in the San Francisco Bay Area. His case was eventually heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. During the case, attorneys for the government argued that the country was in critical danger and that its actions were appropriate. General DeWitt and other military officials claimed that there was a definite military necessity for the removal, incarceration, and other orders, because Japanese Americans were possibly committing acts of sabotage.* In a 6-to-3 decision in the case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with the President and Congress. Justice Black’s majority opinion states: “There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short." 10

Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration

Page 3 of 4

In Justice Murphy's dissenting opinion, he states that the exclusion order goes over, the very brink of constitutional power and falls into the ugly abyss of racism. In dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, we must accord great respect and consideration to the judgments of the military authorities who are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the military facts. The scope of their discretion must, as a matter of necessity and common sense, be wide. And their judgments ought not to be overruled lightly by those whose training and duties ill-equip them to deal intelligently with matters so vital to the physical security of the nation. At the same time, however, it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion… Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support. Justice Roberts also wrote the following in his dissenting opinion: I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of Constitutional rights. …it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Discussion Questions: ! What dangers were government officials worried about when they implemented Executive Order 9066? ! What constitutional rights were suspended for Japanese Americans under the government’s claim of military necessity? ! Was the action of mass removal and incarceration appropriate to the danger? [*Note - The federal government's lawyers and other officials knew these claims were false but did not disclose this to the Supreme Court. This lie was uncovered in the late 1970s and led to the reopening of the Korematsu case. Fred Korematsu's conviction of violating an exclusion order was vacated (nullified) at the federal district court. This ruling was made because highranking government and military officials hid vital evidence and misled the Supreme Court. Although Korematsu's criminal conviction was nullified, the Supreme Court's 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States remains a legal precedent that can still be used to deny people's constitutional rights on the basis of their race or ancestry. In her opinion nullifying the Korematsu conviction, District Judge Marilyn Patel warned against this:

11

Decisions: Japanese American Incarceration

Page 4 of 4

Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history ... As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused. —Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984).] Civil Liberties Act of 1988 Congress Passes Legislation, President Approves Redress to Japanese Americans About 30 years after being released from incarceration camps, Japanese Americans started calling for the U.S. government to recognize it had wrongly imprisoned them. In response, Congress passed an act in 1980 forming the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to examine the government’s actions towards Japanese Americans. This commission conducted hearings, heard testimony from over 750 witnesses, and examined over 10,000 documents. In 1983, the CWRIC's report entitled Personal Justice Denied found that military necessity was not the cause for the mass imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry. Rather, “…the broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Critical information uncovered by the commission were intelligence reports showing both the absence of spying and sabotage by Japanese Americans and the loyalty Japanese Americans had for the United States. The commission also found that Japanese Americans and their immigrant elders had suffered great financial losses and emotional damage. Many lost farms, stores, and homes, and families and lives were destroyed. The commission recommended that the government give an apology and monetary redress for the injustices it had committed. Those opposed to the recommendations of the CWRIC argued that it was not appropriate to single out a particular group for redress, as many Americans made sacrifices during World War II. They also argued that it set a bad precedent to try to right a wrong that happened so long ago. In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, which required payment and apology to survivors of the World War II incarceration. Two years later, President George Bush presented the first formal apologies, along with $20,000 individual payments, to the oldest survivors. Discussion Questions: ! What caused congress to create a commission to examine the government’s actions towards Japanese Americans during World War II? ! What were the findings of the commission? ! Why did the commission recommend an apology and redress payments? ! Why did some people oppose the recommendations? 12

Handout #1 - Values Exercise Below are lists of democratic ideals and constitutional principles. Your assignment is to list these concepts in the order you think is most important for both peacetime and wartime. Be prepared to explain the choices you made. Why did you rank some higher than others? What difference did it make whether it was peacetime or wartime?

Democratic Ideals Our democratic ideals are: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

List in order of importance Peacetime

Justice Equality Life Pursuit of Happiness Liberty Common Good Diversity Truth Popular Sovereignty Patriotism

Wartime

Constitutional Principles Constitutional principles are: ! ! ! ! ! ! !

List in order of importance Peacetime Wartime

Rule of Law Separation of Powers Representative Government Checks and Balances Civil Rights Human Rights Federalism

13

Bush Administration Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 1 of 8

Your role: You represent the Bush administration and believe that protecting the United States is the administration’s top priority. You believe strongly in sending our soldiers wherever they are needed to combat terrorism. You believe in the necessity of temporarily detaining suspected terrorists, or those who might have links to suspected terrorists, to make sure that a 9/11 attack never happens again. You also consider that the weapons and techniques of terrorists are much more deadly and sophisticated than in the past, and you need all the tools and information possible to fight terrorism. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

14

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 2 of 8

Your role: You are a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and view the government’s action as a threat to our civil liberties. You believe the government is using the “war on terrorism” as an excuse to violate the civil rights and civil liberties of innocent individuals. In particular you feel the following constitutional rights would be violated: ! Fourth Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. ! Fifth Amendment - No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. ! Sixth Amendment - Right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel. ! Fourteenth Amendment - All persons (citizens and noncitizens) within the US are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

15

U.S. Soldier Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 3 of 8

Your role: You are 19 years old and enlisted in the U.S. Army after you graduated from high school. Many of your relatives are serving or have served in the military. You are currently training to fight in Iraq. You understand that there is a chance that you will be killed or wounded. You are proud to be an American and believe that the United States is the best country in the world. Although you are apprehensive about combat, you want to serve your country to keep it safe. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

16

Gordon Hirabayashi Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 4 of 8

Your role: You are a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry. During World War II, you were a University of Washington student who challenged the constitutionality of the curfew and exclusion order that was targeted at Japanese Americans who lived on the West Coast. You believe that a person’s ancestry is not a crime and that the government made a terrible mistake by incarcerating over 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans. Your court cases also exposed how, during World War II, the U.S. government withheld important information that showed Japanese Americans on the West Coast were not a threat to national security. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

17

ExxonMobil Corporation Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 5 of 8

Your role: You are an executive with ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the United States. Your company conducts a great deal of business in the Middle East. You are concerned that terrorists will disrupt oil production by attacking oil tankers, oil drilling stations, and oil pipelines. Your company has billions of dollars invested to bring oil to the United States. A disruption would cause sharp increases in the price of gasoline making life difficult for the average American. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

18

Abdinasir Ali Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 6 of 8

Your role: You are a Somali immigrant who operates a small grocery store in Seattle. You regularly mail money from your store’s earnings back to relatives in Somalia who depend on you for financial support, as it is difficult to earn a living in that country. You have been accused of being involved in a terrorist network because some of the money you sent has been used to fund terrorist organizations, or that is the suspicion. You have been questioned by the FBI and were held by them for a time but are currently free. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

19

Perspective of a 9/11 Victim’s Family Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 7 of 8

Your role: You lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Your loved ones were not involved in military actions, the oil business, or anything controversial. Hypothetical scenario: This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

20

Holocaust Survivor Perspective Group Role Playing Instructions

Group 8 of 8

Your role: You are a survivor of the Holocaust. Members of your family died in the death camps in Germany. You also have friends and family who live in Israel where terrorist attacks are a common occurrence. Hypothetical scenario This simulation represents a hypothetical scenario where in the months following September 11, 2001, the President has asked the U.S. Congress to pass laws that will allow the administration to better fight against the war on terrorism. Two specific proposals are: 1. the ability to monitor inside the United States without a court order, phone conversations, and e-mails of citizens and non-citizens; and, 2. to detain indefinitely, without a hearing, any individual the administration suspects of aiding terrorist organizations, even if there is no hard evidence to support the suspicion. Organizer of the Town Meeting: Daniel K. Inouye, the senior U.S. Senator from Hawaii, has organized a town meeting to hear comments and discussion to help him decide how he will vote on the administration’s proposals. Senator Inouye is a decorated war hero and believes strongly in the importance of strong national security and intelligence. He has also seen firsthand the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans who were loyal to the United States but looked like the enemy. Senator Inouye is a Japanese American who was a young man in Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Senator Inouye volunteered for the Army, fought in Europe with a segregated Japanese American infantry unit, and received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and bravery during World War II. Many of the men who Senator Inouye fought with were drafted or volunteered from detention camps that held Japanese Americans from the West Coast. Your instructions: Within your group, prepare a one-minute opening statement. Your opening statement should do the following: 1. introduce who you represent 2. clearly indicate your opinion of the proposals and why 3. identify the democratic ideals or constitutional principles that represent your viewpoint 4. cite the Constitution, court cases, or other documents that strengthen your viewpoint

21

Handout #3 - Additional Resources The text of the Bill of Rights http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm Link detailing the executive powers of the President, which includes his authority as Commander in Chief of the military http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ Bush administration’s legal justification for domestic surveillance http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf National Public Radio (NPR) overview of the Bush administration’s rationale for extending surveillance http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) overview of why the Patriot Act threatens civil liberties http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf Article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about the FBI raiding a Somali business http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/46053_somali09.shtml HistoryLink essay on Gordon Hirabayashi http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2070 Detailed information about the underlying causes of the Japanese American incarceration http://www.densho.org/causes/default.asp Testimonies of Holocaust survivors http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/vhi/testimonyviewer/vhfmain.htm Stories about 9/11 http://www.pbs.org/itvs/caughtinthecrossfire/after911.html Information and links about Arab Americans http://www.pbs.org/itvs/caughtinthecrossfire/arab_americans.html

22

Handout #4 - Graphic Organizer for the Town Meeting Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence: Group: Position: Democratic Ideals or Constitutional Principles important to this group: Key Points or Evidence:

23

Handout #5 - Persuasive Paper Assignment & Checklist

Page 1 of 3

Assignment At the end of this lesson you will write a persuasive paper where you will: 1) Select one of the issues discussed during the Town Meeting simulation and explain how this issue connects with democratic ideals and constitutional principles. 2) Evaluate other points of view on this issue. 3) Explain how court cases and/or government policies affect the interpretation of rights involved with this issue using specific references. 4) Develop a position on the issue that analyzes how individual rights and the common good can be balanced in relation to the issue. 5) Provide accurate reasons to support your position.

Student Checklist for Paper Inquiry, Information, and Group Process ! I selected a public issue from the town meeting simulation to write about. ! I made sure that the issue… - relates to democratic ideals. - relates to constitutional principles. - involves people with a variety of perspectives on this issue. ! I researched background, policies, and multiple stakeholder’s perspectives related to the issue. For each stakeholder . . . - I reviewed a variety of credible sources. - I found relevant, reliable, and valid information on the stakeholder’s point of view. - I identified connections between the stakeholder’s point of view and democratic ideals constitutional principles. - I determined the stakeholder’s perspective on the rights and responsibilities related to the issue. - I analyzed how court cases and changes in government policy have affected stakeholder’s rights. ! I used and documented at least one primary source and several secondary sources. ! I included at least one reference from a foundational document (Constitution, Declaration of Independence). ! I collected evidence of my research (hard copies, notes, paraphrased summaries, charts, questions, underlining). ! I examined sources to ensure that they are valid, reliable, and credible research sources (double-checked statistics, looked for bias, etc.); I identified facts and opinions. ! I created an annotated bibliography documenting each source (including title, author, publisher, date) and a 2–3 sentence description of the credibility, reliability, value, and usefulness of the information in each source.

24

Handout #5 - Persuasive Paper Assignment & Checklist

Page 2 of 3

Group Forum ! I listed key points and evidence from the point of view of multiple stakeholders. ! I participated in a discussion that included various perspectives. - I voiced original ideas. - I cited foundational documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution) and other documents (court decisions, legislation, etc.) to support my arguments. - I demonstrated content knowledge. - I used specific language and evidence to make a persuasive argument. - I listened critically and built on the ideas of others. - I asked clarifying questions. - I challenged the ideas of others without criticizing people. - I negotiated and compromised. ! If I did not actively participate in the forum, I evaluated the relationship of arguments to democratic ideals, and the relationship of arguments to relevant laws, court decisions, government policies, treaties, and historical cases. ! I took notes on key points of peers’ presentations. Preparation for Writing ! I analyzed the points presented in the town meeting and formulated a position on the issue. ! I organized information from notes, data, and other evidence to develop my position. Writing and Presenting ! I wrote a draft of my persuasive position paper, which included: - background information on the issue. - a clear position on the issue. - accurate supporting details from primary and secondary sources in my writing. - connections between the sources I researched and the issue. - an evaluation of various groups’ perspectives on the issue in my paper. - description of how the issue reflects the continuing influence of key democratic ideals on the experiences of citizens in the U.S. - at least one reference to how court cases and government policies have influenced interpretation of the Constitutional rights of various groups involved with this issue. ! I revised my paper to make my ideas clearer, better organized, more detailed, more accurate, and more convincing. ! I edited my work to improve grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. ! I used APA or MLA style to give reference to any readings or sources I used within the body of the paper. ! I included the annotated bibliography to document the sources of my ideas.

25

Handout #5 - Persuasive Paper Assignment & Checklist

Page 3 of 3

Sample Paper Outline Provided below for guidance is a sample outline for a persuasive paper. ! Introduction

-

-

Description of the issue o Historical background o Relationship between issue and democratic ideals o Relationship between issue and constitutional principle Position on the issue Introduction to arguments for the position

! Body: Each paragraph addresses one argument for the position; information includes:

-

Description and evaluation of stakeholder perspectives on the issue Description and evaluation of court cases and government policies related to the issue Specific evidence that supports arguments for position on the issue A convincing case for the position

! Conclusion

-

Summary of position and main arguments Possible solution consistent with position

26

Persuasive Paper Rubric Creates a paper that uses social studies content to support a thesis.

Identifies how this issue reflects the continuing influence of democratic ideals.

4 Excellent Presents a clearly stated, plausible position on the issue with three or more reasons for this position explicitly supported by accurate evidence. Clearly and accurately describes at least two democratic ideals or constitutional principles and the issue and explicitly explains the connection between them.

3 Proficient Presents a clearly stated, plausible position on the issue with two reasons for this position explicitly supported by accurate evidence.

2 Partial Presents a clearly stated, plausible position on the issue with one reason for this position explicitly supported by accurate evidence.

1 Minimal Presents a position on the issue with reasons and no accurate evidence or support.

Clearly and accurately describes a democratic ideal or constitutional principle and the issue and explicitly explains the connection between them.

Clearly and accurately describes a democratic ideal or constitutional principle and the issue but does not make an explicit connection between them.

Explains how the ideal or principle relates to the issue with only partial accuracy.

Engages in civic discourse to evaluate competing solutions.

Evaluates at least three points of view, other than their own, related to the issue with solid evidence to support ideas.

Evaluates at least two points of view, other than their own, related to the issue with solid evidence to support ideas.

Evaluates at least one point of view, other than their own, related to the issue with solid evidence to support ideas.

Evaluates other points of view on the issue without any support.

Analyzes how specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution remain open to change and interpretation.

Accurately explains how court cases and/or government policies affect the interpretation of rights involved with this issue using two or more specific references.

Accurately explains how court cases and/or government policies affect the interpretation of rights involved with this issue using one specific reference.

Explains how court cases and/or government policies affect the interpretation of rights involved with this issue with no specific reference.

Makes reference to court cases or government policies and the rights involved with this issue without connection or explanation.

Analyzes how individual rights can be balanced with the common good.

Clearly analyzes how individual rights and the common good can be balanced in relation to the issue.

Explains the tradeoffs between individual rights and the common good related to the issue.

Describes individual rights and the common good related to the issue but does not explain the tradeoffs.

Identifies individual rights or the common good to the issue.

27