Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

Discussion Topic. The advertisements were regarding California’s Proposition 8, the proposed
law to ban gay marriage in the state. The issue is already one that creates strong reactions on
either side. In addition, the advertisements, for purposes of illustrating specious reasoning that
should be challenged by active learners, were particularly pointed. A “Yes on 8” advertisement
used language intended to create fear about the stability of churches and what would be taught to
small children in the classroom if Proposition 8 failed (Protectmarriage.com, 2008). A “No on 8”
advertisement depicted Mormon missionaries entering the home of a lesbian couple to seize their
marriage license (Courage Campaign Issues Committee, 2008).
Preparation. Prior to showing the videos, students were informed that the topic would be
introduced so that they would be able to apply what they have learned about research as a
process of supporting a point of view. The students were encouraged to keep that guiding
principle in mind during discussion. After the students had viewed both videos, the author stated,
“I know this is a tough topic for many of you here, myself included. What we need to remember
before discussing the merit or lack of merit with these two ads is that we should concentrate on
how the message was delivered, not just our feelings about the message itself.”
Open Discussion. The classroom discussion took place on three separate levels. The first level
was a discussion of the merits and problems of each advertisement after it was shown. The
second level was a discussion of the state of public discourse about the topic of the
advertisements, Proposition 8 and gay marriage. The third level was a discussion of the generally
misleading nature of political advertisements. This level included a direct link to the night’s
overall theme of critical thinking.
After each advertisement was shown, the students were invited to contribute their
thoughts on the flaws in logic, presentation, and method of communication inherent in the
advertisement. During this time the students were not invited to compare the advertisements, just
to note problems in each. This level of discussion was direct and did not result in any perceived
heated arguments, raised voices, or other indices of strong reactions. The discussion was started
with the question, “What is wrong with the way these advertisements chose to convey their
points” Both advertisements were flawed in numerous ways; the students seemed to find it easy
to address these flaws objectively.
Once the students had finished discussing each advertisement, the discussion was
expanded to include the nature of the public debate over Proposition 8. This discussion included
the use of fear-based tactics and faulty arguments on both sides of the issue—e.g., people
eventually marrying animals on the “Yes on 8” side and society reverting to slavery after rights
had been stripped away on the “No on 8” side. A sample question would be, “What are your
reactions to the process of public debate over this issue”
During this time a few students noted their feelings about Proposition 8, but they were for
the most part couched in the point of view of the counseling field’s advocacy for clients. The
students who provided personal reactions uniformly opposed Proposition 8; no students spoke in
favor of Proposition 8. It is not known why the other view was not represented. It is possible that
those in favor could have held back because those against it had already spoken and gotten tacit
approval from their fellow classmates. It is also possible that the comments were indicative of
the views of the entire group. This was not investigated further, out of respect for the possibility
that exposing students in the minority view (i.e. “Yes on 8”) might have violated the principle of
moderation to prevent problematic self-disclosure, as discussed above.
84