PHIL111: Contemporary Moral Issues - Technology Ethics

Meeting time: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11:30am-12:45pm CT, PSYC 106

Office: Virtual (due to COVID)

Office Hours: by appointment

Email: joliphint@tamu.edu

This course will introduce you to philosophical methodology and philosophical content through exploring The Ethics of Technology, including Digital Ethics. We will begin by taking a look at our use of screens and the ethical issues involved in 'phubbing' (snubbing others through the use of a phone), augmented reality, YouTube, and video games. We will then move to the ethics of internet use, including privacy, piracy, and bullying. We will look briefly into robot ethics, including the phenomenon of robots replacing persons in the workplace. Our most extensive topic will be that of social media ethics, where we will cover body image, harassment, internet romance, bullying, and even memes. We will then look at a couple issues regarding artificial intelligence, and will end by covering biotechnology and medical ethics, including topics like frozen embryos, CRISPR, and medical data privacy. Through readings and discussion, you will learn to read with a philosophical eye and write with philosophical structure and rigor.

Course Requirements and Grading

• Attendance and Engagement: (20%)

  • Attendance: (5%)

  • Engagement/Group Discussion: (15%)

• Response Pieces (500-600 words): (24%)

  • 3 total (8% each)

• Aggie Experience (700 words): (10%)

• Mid-term Paper (1,000-1,250 words): (15%)

• Final Paper: (31%)

  • Paper Topic and Sources Approval: (5%)

  • Paper Outline (3%)

  • Peer Comments: (3%)

  • Paper Itself (2,000-2,500 words): (20%)

Required Readings

1. Aagaard, Jesper. “Digital Akrasia: A Qualitative Study of Phubbing.” AI & SOCIETY 35, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 237–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0.

2. Alfano, Mark, Amir Ebrahimi Fard, J. Adam Carter, Peter Clutton, and Colin Klein. “Technologically Scaffolded Atypical Cognition: The Case of YouTube’s Recommender System.” Synthese, June 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02724-x.

3. Becker, Marcel. “Privacy in the Digital Age: Comparing and Contrasting Individual versus Social Approaches towards Privacy.” Ethics and Information Technology 21, no. 4 (December 1, 2019): 307–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09508-z.

4. Blackshaw, Bruce P., and Nicholas Colgrove. “Frozen Embryos and the Obligation to Adopt.” Bioethics 34, no. 8 (2020): 857–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12733.

5. Cannizzaro, Sara. “Internet Memes as Internet Signs: A Semiotic View of Digital Culture.” Sign Systems Studies 44, no. 4 (December 31, 2016): 562–86. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2016.44.4.05.

6. Cara, Mariane. “The Semiotic Layers of Instagram in Advance.” American Journal of Semiotics, March 12, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs201931146.

7. Castro, Clinton, and Adam K. Pham. “Is the Attention Economy Noxious?” Philosopher’s Imprint 20, no. 17 (2020). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0020.017.

8. Chen, Melvin. “A Tale of Two Deficits: Causality and Care in Medical AI.” Philosophy & Technology 33, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 245–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00359-6.

9. Coeckelbergh, Mark. “Can Machines Create Art?” Philosophy & Technology 30, no. 3 (September 1, 2017): 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0231-5.

10. Dalton-Brown, Sally. “The Ethics of Medical AI and the Physician-Patient Relationship.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29, no. 1 (January 2020): 115–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000847.

11. Derzakarian, Armida. “The Dark Side of Social Media Romance: Civil Recourse for Catfish Victims.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 50, no. 4 (January 1, 2017): 741.

12. Dierksmeier, Claus, and Peter Seele. “Cryptocurrencies and Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 152, no. 1 (September 1, 2018): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3298-0.

13. Douglas, David M. “Doxing: A Conceptual Analysis.” Ethics and Information Technology 18, no. 3 (September 1, 2016): 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9406-0.

14. Eichinger, Johanna, and Tobias Eichinger. “Procreation Machines: Ectogenesis as Reproductive Enhancement, Proper Medicine or a Step towards Posthumanism?” Bioethics 34, no. 4 (2020): 385–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12708.

15. Gunkel, David J. “Mind the Gap: Responsible Robotics and the Problem of Responsibility.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 4 (December 1, 2020): 307–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9428-2.

16. Jacobs, Naomi. “Two Ethical Concerns about the Use of Persuasive Technology for Vulnerable People.” Bioethics 34, no. 5 (2020): 519–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12683.

17. Kos Koklic, Mateja, Monika Kukar-Kinney, and Irena Vida. “Three-Level Mechanism of Consumer Digital Piracy: Development and Cross-Cultural Validation.” Journal of Business Ethics 134, no. 1 (March 1, 2016): 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2075-1.

18. Liao, S. Matthew. “Designing Humans: A Human Rights Approach.” Bioethics 33, no. 1 (2019): 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12519.

19. Lovering, Rob. “A Moral Argument for Frozen Human Embryo Adoption.” Bioethics 34, no. 3 (2020): 242–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12671.

20. Martin, Kirsten. “Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms.” Journal of Business Ethics 160, no. 4 (December 1, 2019): 835–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3.

21. Meissner, Gunter. “Artificial Intelligence: Consciousness and Conscience.” AI & SOCIETY 35, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 225–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00880-4.

22. Neely, Erica L. “Augmented Reality, Augmented Ethics: Who Has the Right to Augment a Particular Physical Space?” Ethics and Information Technology 21, no. 1 (March 1, 2019): 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9484-2.

23. Oja, Martin. “On the Concept of the Deceptive Trailer: Trailer as Paratext and Multimodal Model of Film.” Sign Systems Studies 47, no. 1/2 (August 8, 2019): 177–204. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2019.47.1-2.07.

24. Park, Namkee, Naewon Kang, and Hyun Sook Oh. “Examining Intention of Digital Piracy: An Integration of Social Norms and Ethical Ideologies.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 16, no. 2 (January 1, 2018): 157–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-11-2016-0043.

25. Price, Marjorie S. “Internet Privacy, Technology, and Personal Information.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09525-y.

26. Sharkey, Amanda. “Can We Program or Train Robots to Be Good?” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 4 (December 1, 2020): 283–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9425-5.

27. Siipi, Helena. “Is Genetically Modified Food Unnatural?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28, no. 5 (October 1, 2015): 807–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9568-5.

28. Smids, Jilles, Sven Nyholm, and Hannah Berkers. “Robots in the Workplace: A Threat to—or Opportunity for—Meaningful Work?” Philosophy & Technology 33, no. 3 (September 1, 2020): 503–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00377-4.

29. Sparrow, Robert. “Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters.” The American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 7 (July 3, 2019): 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943.

30. Tremblay, Simon C., Safae Essafi Tremblay, and Pierre Poirier. “From Filters to Fillers: An Active Inference Approach to Body Image Distortion in the Selfie Era.” AI & SOCIETY, July 12, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01015-w.

31. Ullmann, Stefanie, and Marcus Tomalin. “Quarantining Online Hate Speech: Technical and Ethical Perspectives.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09516-z.

Supplemental Readings

1. Alvaro, Carlo. “Lab-Grown Meat and Veganism: A Virtue-Oriented Perspective.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32, no. 1 (February 1, 2019): 127–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09759-2.

2. Angel, James J., and Douglas McCabe. “The Ethics of Payments: Paper, Plastic, or Bitcoin?” Journal of Business Ethics 132, no. 3 (December 1, 2015): 603–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2354-x.

3. Beisbart, Claus. “Are We Sims? How Computer Simulations Represent and What This Means for the Simulation Argument.” The Monist 97, no. 3 (July 1, 2014): 399–417. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist201497325.

4. Chatzopoulou, Elena, Raffaele Filieri, and Shannon Arzu Dogruyol. “Instagram and Body Image: Motivation to Conform to the ‘Instabod’ and Consequences on Young Male Wellbeing.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 54, no. 4 (2020): 1270–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12329.

5. Wolf, Ronald de. 2017. “The Potential Impact of Quantum Computers on Society.” Ethics and Information Technology 19 (4): 271–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9439-z.

6. Dalton-Brown, Sally. “The Ethics of Medical AI and the Physician-Patient Relationship.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29, no. 1 (January 2020): 115–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000847.

7. Danaher, John. “Robot Betrayal: A Guide to the Ethics of Robotic Deception.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 117–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3.

8. ———. “Welcoming Robots into the Moral Circle: A Defence of Ethical Behaviourism.” Science and Engineering Ethics 26, no. 4 (August 1, 2020): 2023–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x.

9. Dierksmeier, Claus, and Peter Seele. “Cryptocurrencies and Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 152, no. 1 (September 1, 2018): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3298-0.

10. D’Olimpio, Laura. “SHOULD YOU DESIGN THE PERFECT BABY?” Think 20, no. 57 (ed 2021): 107–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147717562000038X.

11. Drabiak, Katherine. “The Nuffield Council’s Green Light for Genome Editing Human Embryos Defies Fundamental Human Rights Law.” Bioethics 34, no. 3 (2020): 223–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12713.

12. Espinoza, Nicolas, and Martin Peterson. 2012. “How to Depolarise the Ethical Debate over Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (and Other Ethical Debates Too!).” Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (8): 496–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100099.

13. Estrada, Daniel. “Human Supremacy as Posthuman Risk.” The Journal of Sociotechnical Critique 1, no. 1 (July 13, 2020). https://doi.org/10.25779/j5ps-dy87.

14. Fallis, Don. “The Epistemic Threat of Deepfakes.” Philosophy & Technology, August 6, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00419-2.

15. Fröding, Barbro, and Martin Peterson. 2012. “Why Virtual Friendship Is No Genuine Friendship.” Ethics and Information Technology 14 (3): 201–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9284-4.

16. Goering, Sara, Timothy Brown, and Eran Klein. n.d. “Neurotechnology Ethics and Relational Agency.” Philosophy Compass https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12734.

17. Harvey, Jeffrey A, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, et al. 2018. “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy.” BioScience 68 (4): 281–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix133.

18. Hofmann, Bjørn. “Progress Bias versus Status Quo Bias in the Ethics of Emerging Science and Technology.” Bioethics 34, no. 3 (2020): 252–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12622.

19. Liv, Nadine, and Dov Greenbaum. “Deep Fakes and Memory Malleability: False Memories in the Service of Fake News.” AJOB Neuroscience 11, no. 2 (April 2, 2020): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1740351.

20. Oja, Martin. “On the Concept of the Deceptive Trailer: Trailer as Paratext and Multimodal Model of Film.” Sign Systems Studies 47, no. 1/2 (August 8, 2019): 177–204. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2019.47.1-2.07.

21. Osler, Lucy. 2021. “Taking Empathy Online.” Inquiry 0 (0): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1899045.

22. Price, Marjorie S. “Internet Privacy, Technology, and Personal Information.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 163–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09525-y.

23. Rini, Regina. “Deepfakes and the Epistemic Backstop.” Philosopher’s Imprint 20, no. 24 (2020). http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0020.024.

24. Sebastián, Miguel Ángel. 2021. “First-Person Representations and Responsible Agency in AI.” Synthese, March. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03105-8.

25. Segers, Seppe, Guido Pennings, Wybo Dondorp, Guido De Wert, and Heidi Mertes. “In Vitro Gametogenesis and the Creation of ‘Designer Babies.’” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28, no. 3 (July 2019): 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000422.

26. Shriver, Adam, and Emilie McConnachie. “Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31, no. 2 (April 1, 2018): 161–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9719-6.

27. Sparrow, Robert. “Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters.” The American Journal of Bioethics 19, no. 7 (July 3, 2019): 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943.

28. Tosi, Justin, and Brandon Warmke. “Moral Grandstanding.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 44, no. 3 (2016): 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12075.

29. Turp, Michael-John. “Social Media, Interpersonal Relations and the Objective Attitude.” Ethics and Information Technology 22, no. 3 (September 1, 2020): 269–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09538-y.

30. Warmke, Craig. “What Is Bitcoin?” Inquiry (January 11, 2021): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1860123.

31. Wonderly, Monique. “Video Games and Ethics.” In Spaces for the Future: A Companion to Philosophy of Technology, edited by Joseph C. Pitt and Ashley Shew. New York, USA: Routledge, 2017.

You can check out a compilation of case studies in digital ethics here.

Other media that may be of interest:

• The Social Dilemma (Netflix)

• Fake Famous (HBO)

• Q: Into the Storm (HBO)

• Coded Bias (Netflix)

• 'Million Dollar Microsecond' (Radiolab podcast)

Main Objectives

1. Through readings of original sources within digital and technology ethics and through class discussion that follows, you will gain familiarity with the literature within the field, and will learn to recognize each position's strengths and weaknesses.

2. You will gain familiarity and a measure of competence with the tools used in philosophical methodology to analyze academic texts. You will be able to identify the main thesis, terminology, lines of argument, examples and evidence, and potential counterexamples within a given text, and evaluate the overall effectiveness of those elements for making a case.

3. You will gain wide exposure to a diverse array of philosophers and a wide variety of philosophical positions. This exposure will include the application of ethical theory and philosophical methodology to many topics in technology ethics that are also discussed at the popular level.

4. Through writing and discussion, you will cultivate habits of insightful, precise, and respectful dialogue in both written and oral form, elevating discourse on controversial topics beyond mere talking points, slogans, and generalizations.

Attendance and Engagement

Your attendance and engagement will be crucial for your success in the course. Each student is allowed to miss two classes without penalty, though not consecutively and not within the same week. Though I dislike metricizing engagement, you will be expected to make qualitative contributions to class discussion at least twice a week to earn engagement credit. It is as much your responsibility to track your level of engagement as it is mine. Feel free to contact me if there are any questions as to what your level of engagement has been at any point in the semester.

Group Discussion

After I take attendance each day, you will divide into five-person cohorts for ten minutes to discuss the material assigned for that day. For the first three class periods before cohort selections are due, you will get to know the class and get a feel of who you might want to work with in your cohort. At the end of the ten minutes, either you or I will designate someone from your group to state 1) the thesis and argument of the reading and 2) to answer at least two response questions (identify terminology, identify examples, give reasons for the thesis, or state objections to the thesis).

Success in stating those responses clearly and accurately will determine your grade for group discussion.

Response Pieces

You will write five 500-600-word (double-spaced, 10pt font, Times New Roman or similar) responses, each responding to a reading from the "Supplemental Readings" section above. You may also wish to find your own articles from the following journals (among others, pending my approval):

• Ethics and Information Technology

• Science and Engineering Ethics

• Philosophy & Technology

• AI and Ethics

The response will be in prose or essay form, and the responses will concentrate on the following:

Response #1: Terminology Identify the terms the author introduces and how those terms are defined. Were the definitions the author gave helpful? Would you define any of the terms differently? Were there other terms in the paper that the author neglected to define?

Response #2: The Thesis What is the main thesis of the paper? Was the main thesis of the paper clearly stated? If there were terms used in the main thesis, were they clearly defined? Would you have stated the main thesis of the paper differently from the way the author stated it?

Response #3a: Examples What examples did the author use in the paper? Did the examples help support the main thesis? Were the examples clear? If there were terms used in the main thesis or in any of the examples were the terms clearly defined? If the author used no examples, did this hurt the overall argument? What examples would you have used to support the thesis?

OR

Response #3b: Reasons What are the primary reasons the author gives to support the main thesis? Were the reasons convincing? Did the reasons include any examples, and if so were they helpful or unhelpful? Were there terms used in the reasons, and if so were they clearly defined? Are there reasons you would have given that would better support the main thesis?

Response #4: Objections What objections does the author anticipate and address, and how does the author defend the main thesis against the objections? Are any of the objections counterexamples to the main thesis? Are the terms that are introduced in the objections, and if so are they clearly defined? If the author does not anticipate any objections, what objections to the main thesis should the author have anticipated? Are there objections you thought of that the author did not include?

The file name you submit will look like [Last name], [First name] - [Title of response].

Mid-term Paper

Your mid-term paper will be 1,000-1,250 words (double-spaced, 10pt font, Times New Roman or similar), and will at minimum address all of the questions asked of the five response pieces (with proper citation): you will identify the terms, the main thesis, the examples used, the reasons given that support the main thesis, and any objections to the main thesis mentioned by the author. You will choose to write on any other reading from the Supplemental Reading selections.

Final Paper

Your final paper will be 2,000-2,500 words (double-spaced, 10pt font, Times New Roman or similar), and you will shift from analyzing arguments to constructing your own argument for an ethical conclusion on one of the topics we have looked at in class. It will follow this general structure:

• An opening paragraph that motivates the paper: what problem are you addressing? why is this important? what is the puzzle you intend to highlight and perhaps solve?

• A map of your argument, i.e. an Introduction section that states what you are about to argue.

• The argument itself. For each main section, you will begin with an introductory paragraph mapping and describing what you are about to do in each section. You do not have to have a separate section for each of these elements below; in fact, that would make for an awkwardly written paper. But all elements should be interwoven into the prose of your argument.

  • You will define any technical terms you introduce.

  • You will state your thesis clearly, toward the beginning of the paper.

  • You will give helpful examples that illustrate and support your argument.

  • You will make it clear when you are giving supporting reasons for your argument, and it will be clear how these reasons support your argument.

  • You will anticipate and note objections to your argument, and will explain why the objections do not undermine your argument.

• A Conclusion section that summarizes your argument, findings, and results, as well as 1) further questions that need to be answered, and 2) an idea for anyone wanting to continue your research and findings.

By March 25th you will send me an email that includes the (two or more) sources you have chosen, and why you have chosen them in particular. (The sources may be from the Supplemental Readings, though they do not have to be, but they may not include a source you have already written on.) On April 6th you will have a relatively detailed outline of your paper drafted and sent to me. On April 15th you will send a first draft of your paper to a classmate, who will send their paper to you in return. By April 22nd you both will receive the other's comments on the paper, which will strengthen the paper for its final submission.

Proper citation is expected. The paper is due on or before May 3rd by 5:00pm.

Aggie Experience

PHIL111 satisfies the Cultural Discourse requirement, so the course must include an ‘Aggie Experience’ involving cultural diversity. Without COVID restrictions, these experiences can include campus events or off-site visits to public places. Because of the current restrictions, we will need to replicate the spirit of the assignment virtually.

You will research how experiences of online harassment of ethnic minorities in the U.S. may differ from experiences of online harassment of dominant groups. You will find two sources that address this issue, which may only be from peer-reviewed journals (use TAMU's excellent library to find sources). You will then write a 700-word reflection that summarizes the articles and explains how your experience or the experience of someone you know relates in some specific way to what the article describes. Use ~250 words for the summary and the rest on relating an experience you have encountered.

Grading Scale

F: 0-59, Has not been turned in or has been turned in extremely late; plagiarized work; incomplete work

D: 60-69, Does not meet the minimum requirements indicated in the assignment instructions

C: 70-79, Meets the minimum requirements but does not meet the majority of the assignment objectives indicated in the instructions

B: 80-89, Meets all of the minimum requirements but only meets some of the assignments objectives indicated in the instructions

A: 90-100, Meets all of the minimum requirements and all of the objectives indicated in the instructions

Guidelines

Preparing for Class

Each day I will expect you to have not just read but absorbed the material and to be ready to talk about it. That requires engagement with the text as you read, and you may wish to take notes on the text, write down questions, or find another mentally active process that helps the material and content stay with you throughout our class discussion.

Class Sessions

The success of the course hinges on class discussion, so attendance is assumed and mandatory, and active engagement is expected. I will introduce and frame the material, and will clarify terms, concepts, and ideas from the reading, and will guide discussion to meet the desired objectives and outcomes. The University policy for absences can be found here: https://student-rules.tamu.edu/rule07/.

Civility

We will often discuss controversial topics about ideas we may believe in strongly and value highly. For this reason, an extra measure of civility and charity will be required during discussion. We will be focusing on the arguments and the content without making personal comments. I reserve the right to penalize comments I deem to be personal or uncharitable. At no point will class be recorded in any way, by any student or by me.

Email policy

Because of the number of students in the class, emails to me should be kept to a minimum. If you have a question, first check the syllabus to see if the answer is there, and your cohort will be available to pass along to you any information you may have missed. If your question isn't answered through those means, I'm happy to address it.

Late Assignments

Late assignments will be marked down one letter grade from its final grade for every late day, and on the third late day the assignment will be marked as a zero.

Office Hours

My office hours will be virtual and by appointment. You should not hesitate to contact me by email and set up an appointment to talk.

Institutional Policies

Disability, statement of accommodation, and Title IX

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that provides comprehensive civil rights protection for persons with disabilities. Among other things, this legislation requires that all students with disabilities be guaranteed a learning environment that provides for reasonable accommodation of their disabilities. If you believe you have a disability requiring an accommodation, please contact Disability Services, in Cain Hall, Room B118, or call 845-1637. NB: You must register with disability services and provide medical documentation to support your request for consideration at least two weeks prior to the time the requested services are needed, in particular, prior to an exam. Students requiring accommodation must submit the relevant paperwork in the first week of class. University resources are available at https://disability.tamu.edu.

Texas A&M University and the College of Liberal Arts are committed to fostering a learning environment that is safe and productive for all. University policies and federal and state laws provide guidance for achieving such an environment. Although class materials are generally considered confidential pursuant to student record policies and laws, University employees — including instructors — cannot maintain confidentiality when it conflicts with their responsibility to report certain issues that jeopardize the health and safety of our community. As the instructor, I must report (per Texas A&M System Regulation 08.01.01) the following information to other University offices if you share it with me, even if you do not want the disclosed information to be shared:

• Allegations of sexual assault, sexual discrimination, or sexual harassment when they involve TAMU students, faculty, or staff, or third parties visiting campus.

These reports may trigger contact from a campus official who will want to talk with you about the incident that you have shared. In many cases, it will be your decision whether or not you wish to speak with that individual. If you would like to talk about these events in a more confidential setting, you are encouraged to make an appointment with the Student Counseling Service (https://scs.tamu.edu).

Students and faculty can report non-emergency behavior that causes them to be concerned at http://tellsomebody.tamu.edu.

Academic integrity

Students should be familiar with Texas A&M’s definitions and policies regarding cheating and plagiarism, found here. The assignments given in this class require independent thought in a way that is very difficult to plagiarize effectively. Academic dishonesty includes cheating in all its forms and is utterly inconsistent with the Aggie Honor Code: “An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.”. Under Texas A&M’s policies, students guilty of academic dishonesty may receive lowered grades and other more severe penalties. For further details, consult the website for the Aggie Honor System Office. Note that academic dishonesty includes not only getting someone else to do your work (with or without their knowledge) but also knowingly doing someone else’s work for them. Please note that I take the Aggie Honor Code very seriously and expect strict adherence to it. Plagiarism is easy to detect. Don’t plagiarize.

Withdrawal

It is the student’s responsibility to withdraw from classes; professors have no obligation to withdraw students who do not attend courses. For further details on withdrawal, see https://registrar.tamu.edu/Catalogs,-Policies-Procedures/ Academic-Calendar.

Equity and diversity

In addition to meeting its obligations of nondiscrimination under federal and state law, Texas A&M University is committed to creating a community in which a diverse population can live, learn, and work in an atmosphere of tolerance, civility, and respect for the rights and sensibilities of each individual, without regard to economic status, ethnic background, political views, or other personal characteristics or beliefs. The classroom is a place of conversation and debate. Disagreement is to be expected, especially when considering ideas that relate to people’s philosophical and religious beliefs. As alluded to above, this does not give anyone the right to demean or ridicule the ideas and opinions of others. Please be courteous and open to learning from your classmates.

Schedule

Campus Safety Measures

To promote public safety and protect students, faculty, and staff during the coronavirus pandemic, Texas A&M University has adopted policies and practices for the Spring 2021 academic term to limit virus transmission. Students must observe the following practices while participating in face-to-face courses and course-related activities (office hours, help sessions, transitioning to and between classes, study spaces, academic services, etc.):

• Self-monitoring—Students should follow CDC recommendations for self-monitoring. Students who have a fever or exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 should participate in class remotely and should not participate in face-to-face instruction.

• Face Coverings—Face coverings (cloth face covering, surgical mask, etc.) must be properly worn in all non-private spaces including classrooms, teaching laboratories, common spaces such as lobbies and hallways, public study spaces, libraries, academic resource and support offices, and outdoor spaces where 6 feet of physical distancing is difficult to reliably maintain. Description of face coverings and additional guidance are provided in the Face Covering policy and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) available on the Provost website.

• Physical Distancing—Physical distancing must be maintained between students, instructors, and others in course and course-related activities.

• Classroom Ingress/Egress—Students must follow marked pathways for entering and exiting classrooms and other teaching spaces. Leave classrooms promptly after course activities have concluded. Do not congregate in hallways and maintain 6-foot physical distancing when waiting to enter classrooms and other instructional spaces.

• To attend a face-to-face class session, students must properly wear an approved face covering. If a student refuses to wear a face covering, the instructor should ask the student to leave. If the course includes synchronous delivery for that class session, the instructor should ask the student to join the class remotely. Otherwise, the student would miss the class session and any associated attendance related benefits. If the student does not leave the classroom, the faculty member should report that student to the Student Conduct office for sanctions. Additionally, if the class has a synchronous remote option, the faculty member may choose to teach that day’s class session remotely for all students or, if the class session does not have a synchronous remote option, dismiss the entire class.

Texas A&M University recognizes that mental health and wellness are critical factors that influence a student’s academic success and overall wellbeing. Students are encouraged to engage in proper self-care by utilizing the resources and services available from Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS). Students who need someone to talk to can call the Texas A&M Helpline (979-845-2700) from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m. weekdays and 24 hours on weekends. 24-hour emergency help is also available through the National Suicide Prevention Hotline (800-273-8255) or at suicidepreventionlifeline.org.