The Imperialism Debates Day 2

Posted by mbsperez on 30 November 2010

Now for some non-spoiler comments on the China trial in Camia, and the last two Indian Mutiny trials in Dahlia and Ilang-Ilang.

CAMIA, CHINA

Seeing the difference between the first and second trials is always something I look forward to. It tells me a lot about how the participants learned from the first one. I’m glad to say that I’m simply pleased with today’s performance. It was a pleasure, actually, to see the likes of Dessa, JD, and Carlyn let loose. They’re among the best lawyers I’ve seen thus far, and I really liked the highly substantive (in Filipino: may nilalalaman) exchange between the two sides.

Though the objections and counter-objections didn’t have lightning and thunder, they sure had sniper fire — which is just as good if not even better. I don’t want to write more about the content so that I don’t give Gia too many ideas (she was amusing, by the way) but overall I’m glad with what I saw. It had a good blend of serious and light moments that I like in these mock trials.

DAHLIA, INDIA

Dahlia began at a level similar to Champaca last Saturday. It was mostly flat until Yno began cross-examining and the energy level shot up to astronomical levels. It wasn’t sustained much though, as the latter parts of the trial got trapped in a petty exchange over trivialities such as handwriting. While that can happen in a real trial, it didn’t offer much in terms of substance, and so I feel that the class didn’t pick up as much as it could’ve from the mock trial itself. That’s too bad. The witnesses had enormous potential. Reading from their affidavits, I got a sense that this could’ve been a really important trial but it missed the mark a bit.

ILANG-ILANG, INDIA

Well, this was another surprise. My pre-trial opinions of the two teams got completely reversed during the actual performance. One side managed to keep it simple and stuck to a single attack plan. The other was too fickle. They tried to go wide and at their worst, they shot themselves in the foot. (I have a more detailed critique which I will share after the trials are done.) While I feel that one side has a distinct advantage, I can’t really say that both sides were that efficient in arguing their point. I feel that we could have learned more if the two sides were more evenly matched.

IN SUMMARY

Having seen the five India trials, I can say that Jasmin is a little ahead in terms of the quality of performance, Camia is the most amusing, and Ilang-Ilang is the best-dressed! I’ve already seen the difference one trial makes in Camia, and I can’t wait to see what the other sections do for their China trials.

Good luck to all!

The Imperialism Debates Day 1 Impressions

Posted by mbsperez on 27 November 2010

Let’s see if I can keep this up for the next week.

Today, we had the mock trials on the Indian Mutiny for Champaca, Jasmin, and Camia. Here are some of my non-spoilery (I don’t want to influence the judges too much with my comments) thoughts.

CHAMPACA, INDIA

The nerves were so strong in this inaugural trial and I can hardly blame them. Everyone was feeling their way in the beginning, but I think Jason was able to find his footing the earliest. This year, I really emphasized the preparation of the witnesses and it has clearly paid off. The quality of the witnesses, even at this very early stage, is already so much better. (I’ve had trials before where the witnesses knew nothing and I just ended up sermoning the class.)

I am looking forward to the next trials. I saw that the teams were really paying attention and took a lot of notes on how to conduct themselves. And I know for a fact that some lawyers in the next trials have been working their asses off and are out for blood. I’m optimistic that Champaca is like a diesel engine: It’ll take a while to start-up but will pack a lot of power at their peak. (They did win the KKKwiz so I’m sure there’s more from where that came from!)

JASMIN, INDIA

This trial was a pleasant surprise. I wasn’t too confident of the preparation of one team during the pre-trial phase, but wow. Both teams were pretty good today! The match turned out to be more even than I thought, and I can say now that this was the most competitive trial today. The witnesses were ready and each one made sense, but the lawyers were the ones who really put everything together, particularly Marti who even frightened Bianca at one point. Liana was also particularly sharp — a quality I’d like to see more in the other lawyers.

CAMIA, INDIA

Based on what I saw during the pre-trial, I was expecting this to be the hottest contest for today. However, it turned out to be not as tight as I thought. The real star in this trial were the witnesses, particularly Dennis who earned today’s Play of the Day with his crude comment about a dictionary and the definition of the mutiny (the actual words will remain only for those who actually heard it). It was a playful comment, yes, but it injected something that these mock trials badly needed: energy. Since that point, things moved at a brisker and even more competitive pace. Good job to the teams!

IN SUMMARY

It’s too early to present an over-all assessment of anything, but here are some things I want to see and hear in the upcoming trials:

Judges take a firmer control of the trial itself. I’d like to see more discipline in the time it takes lawyers to ask questions.
More dueling between lawyers. As an observer today put it, “The lawyers are too soft.” I want to see more objections and counter-objections together with thunder and lightning. Here’s a tip: If you want to learn the dark arts of lawyering, look up the judge and lawyers from Champaca 2012.
Louder voices. Self-explanatory.

Good luck to the teams on Tuesday!

P.S.

A lot of 2012 have been bugging me about the schedule. Here goes:

Tuesday

7:30 Camia, China
8:20 Dahlia, India
10:00 Ilang, Inda

Wednesday

7:30 Jasmin, China
8:20 Champaca, China
10:50 Ilang, China

Thursday

7:30 Dahlia, China
8:20 Jasmin, Japan
9:10 Camia, Japan

Friday

7:30 Champaca, Japan
8:20 Dahlia, Japan
10:00 Ilang, Japan

An Apology to Our Students

Posted by mbsperez on 26 November 2010

This piece is my response to Arizza’s piece, “An Apology to Pisay”. Add her in Facebook; it’s worth it.

“Don’t be afraid to be the bad guy.”

That is the advice I often give to new teachers. And it is the advice that often stuns them — like a deer staring at oncoming headlights.

“Want to know my first mistake when I was starting out?” They tentatively nod. “Wanting the students to like me. If you’re thinking that, think again.”

That hushes them. Probably makes them even afraid. Of me.

“Don’t think twice about getting tough. Make them work. Make them sweat a bit.” I say these words with the theatric passion of a mafia don. “Make them earn your respect.”

And then a student of mine passes by and I transform. “Hi, sir!” They greet excitedly.

“Hey, there!” I meet their greet. “How are you?” I say with a smile. And we exchange pleasantries; they on their way to class and me halfway through lunch. All smiles all around.

Then one of the new guys ask, “For someone who talks about being the bad guy, you seem pretty liked.”

“That’s the thing,” I pause to chew. “Be the bad guy, not the asshole.”

These days, our students’ fatigue is so thick you can carve statues out of it. It is almost December, yet there is a grim, dark pallor in the places where Christmas used to be. This almost feels like some sordid version of A Christmas Carol where Ebenezer got to convince the three ghosts to give up on Christmas instead. Humbug.

Things have gotten so grim that some feel like apologizing for becoming Scrooge (while others surrendered and just fully embraced their newfound Scrooge-ness). Yet, as a teacher, I couldn’t help but feel some culpability. When students feel that they are living in Voldemort-like dark times, then who is to blame? Who turned off the lights?

I often feel that students today don’t give themselves enough credit. The things they do are difficult. And when they happen to be gifted, multi-talented, and over-achieving, they tend to be even tougher on themselves. Sure, they get 80% done but it is the elusive 20% that keeps them up at night. (And I work in a school where our students’ 100% would already be everybody else’s 300%.)

However, this piece isn’t going to be about them. I don’t want this to end up as another of those pieces where they read, “It’s all going to work out in the end.” “It’s all going to be fine.” “It’s all going to make sense.” No. I’m not writing about these this time around. Why? Because these notions have to be earned. They can be understood as words and as ideas, but they won’t make sense and they shouldn’t. These words can only be spoken, not heard, if they are to be meant.

I’m writing as a teacher, from my generation to yours. And this is about what I feel.

Whenever I see my students broken, in despair, and hovering over the edge, I can’t help but think of what I have done — or haven’t done — to lead them to that point. Though to them I am only one force among a million other causes, I’ve come to understand well enough how the human spirit can be frayed by a single word or deed. I also know how it can be healed.

So I ask me now: What do I have to apologize for?

Certainly, not for making them work hard. I will never apologize if, for even the slightest instance, they felt that they had to work hard to survive my class. I will not apologize for the projects I give that further bore down on their already broken study habits and shattered sleeping hours. I will not apologize for the extremely high standards and expectations I’ve set, for I honestly believe that any less would be insulting to the likes of them. Furthermore, I will not apologize for the grades they’ve gotten; neither their joy nor their anger over them are relevant to me for they get what they give. No teacher, in my honest opinion, should ever apologize for doing their job well.

And yet, I know I’m not completely off the hook. No teacher is.

For in the same manner that students assert that their grades do not completely measure who they are, we teachers instinctively know that our jobs are not measured by the requirements we give, the percentage of the syllabus we accomplish, or the grades our students get. While “the system” may assert that they are to be measured as such, we know that they don’t really matter in the end.

What matters is that they discover who they are. That they come to the full realization of their potentials. And that their spirits are strong enough to overcome adversity, brave enough to dream and take risks, and humble enough to find fulfillment in whatever they choose to do. All the skills, theories, laws, and equations are secondary to their character. For men and women with no integrity, identity, and strong sense of purpose ever will themselves beyond the shore. And if our intent is to form future navigators, visionaries, and innovators, then we fail whenever one of them just end up coasting by the bay.

Thus, when our students feel inadequate, broken, lost, defeated, and powerless then we have much to apologize for. Sorry if I didn’t compliment you on that awesome essay you did there. I apologize if you feel you could’ve been a better leader and I didn’t give you a chance. Is this task a little too much for you? I’m sorry about that, so come here and let me help you get started. I’m sorry if I offended you with what I said, I’d really like to know what you think. And I’m sorry if I didn’t trust you; I’m glad you have proven me wrong.

In the hustle and bustle of high school life, we often miss the fact that a lot of us teachers signed on to this job for largely idealistic reasons. Students don’t have a monopoly of it. And, I daresay, this is one line of work where idealism comes as an asset. We teachers have had our fair share of tough times. And yet we get to say, “Become the change you seek.” “Keep on keeping on.” Because we’ve earned it. We’ve earned it precisely because we lived through the times you’re living through now. We kept on keeping on. We became the change we sought.

Never forget that dreaming is hard work. It’ll be tough. You’ll never have your way. From time to time, you’ll have to be the bad guy. Just don’t be an asshole.

Take it from me.

With much love,

Sir Martin

THE IMPERIALISM DEBATES: Pre-Trial Bulletin

Posted by mbsperez on 24 November 2010

I’ve issued a lot of reminders and answered a lot of questions in the past days, and I am writing this post to summarize everything I’ve said for the benefit of all. Let’s use a FAQ format for an easier read. I’ll start with the judges, the lawyers, the clients and witnesses, and end with some answers to general questions.

FOR JUDGES

What do we need to study for the pre-trial?

Focus on your assigned case. I’ll be asking you to give me your assessment of the two teams, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. I’d also like you to evaluate their work ethic as individuals and as teams. While I will not ask you specific questions about the issue at hand, you will obviously need a working knowledge of the issue if you are to evaluate the teams fairly and objectively.This document will be kept extremely confidential between me and you.

What do you expect us to do during the actual trial?

If you’ve read “Mary’s Missing Lunch” you’ll see that you won’t have much to say during the trial itself. However, I will count on you to facilitate the activity. As your teacher, I do not plan to involve myself in the trial in any way. (The less I involve myself, the better for everyone.)

As a facilitator, you are expected to monitor the time and ensure that all rules and regulations are followed. I am giving you full discretion during the activity. At any time, you can censure (reprimand) any participant. If required, you can cut down the time for testimonies and cross examinations, for each trial will only have one 45-minute period. When it comes to objections from the lawyers, you can either sustain (approve) or overrule (disapprove). In most cases, they will have to justify their objection save for times when the objectionable act is clearly obvious.

As judges, you are not obliged to call out these objectionable acts yourself if they are not called out by an opposing team of lawyers. You are, however, expected to render penalties and demerits to either team depending on the gravity of the objectionable act. Failing to point out an objectionable act is often as grave an error as commiting it.

In extreme cases, a series of objections and objectionable acts can cause chaos and disorder in court. You have the authority to halt the trial, impose new rules, and even eject participants.

What must our attire be?

I encourage the lawyers from all eight sections to coordinate in order to procure and share a judge’s robe (black) and wooden gavel. My deal is that if you can come with a full robe, you won’t have to change out of the PSHS uniform. Otherwise, you’ll have to wear a formal business attire just as the lawyers.

FOR LAWYERS

What will our pre-trial test be like?

I’ll be testing you on your familiarity and knowledge of court procedures and fallacies. To simplify matters, rely on the Rules of Court on pages 5 to 7 of the activity manual. In addition, read “Love is a Fallacy” if you can. In your test, I’ll ask you to write a series of scripts (dialogues) on various moves such as admitting evidence into court and impeaching a witness. I will leave out questions on the matter (content) of your case for now.

How do we determine who will be Attorney 1 and Attorney 2?

That’s completely your call, and I will leave that decision to you up to the last minute. Just remember that Attorney 1 will give the opening statement and assist the clients and witnesses in the testimony. Attorney 2 will crossexamine the opposing side’s witnesses and give the closing statement. Both attorneys are free to talk to each other during the trial; just keep it down, since making too much noise can be an objectionable act.

Can we take down notes?

Definitely! You are free to have all the notes, references, and materials you’ll need on your desk. The only thing you can’t have however, is a script for your witnesses to follow.

Must all evidences be primary sources?

Yes. I’ve been very clear on that. A primary source is a document, artifact, or specimen from the actual historical person or time period. If you will be using text from the Internet or from photocopied books, I request that you make it more presentable and make it look like it actually came from that time period. Replicas or models are also very much welcome.

This mock trial isn’t that different from a traditional debate, isn’t it?

It is pretty different. While I am calling this a debate since it is essentially a battle of ideas and positions, the format is far from being a ‘traditional’ debate. If by traditional debate you refer to two teams, affirmative and negative, dueling over philosophies, statistics, and policies, you’ll need some adjustment.

The mock trial emphasizes the use of facts. Rhetorical tricks and big speeches won’t be as effective here, since your case can be made or broken with a simple yes-or-no question. In the end, what will make a difference is the quality of the facts you use. Your mastery of the facts lead to credibility, and credibility is reflected and seen in your clients and witnesses. If you read “Mary’s Missing Lunch” you’ll notice that the lawyers only deliver speeches in the beginning and end. Most of the time, the argumentation is very indirect. You’ll be hearing testimonies and counter-testimonies and it is through these that the facts are established.

What is our attire?

Business attire, please. Refer to this image: http://bit.ly/eRRHxM Barong is also acceptable for guys.

THE WITNESSES

What will our pre-trial test be like?

You will be writing an affidavit. Here is what it looks like: http://bit.ly/fGBfdV

Essentially, I am checking on the witnesses’ knowledge of the facts about their own character. Take a look again at the template above. In the spaces for items 1, 2, and 3, you will be writing the statements you intend to stick to for the duration of the trial. The affidavit is critical. If you are caught saying something different from what you wrote, that can serve as grounds for your impeachment. Ignorance would be better than lying, although that too comes at a very steep price.

NOTE: The affidavit will be made available to both sides on the day of the trial.

How far must we go to act out our character?

My emphasis will be on whether you can represent the facts of your character well. At the least, be consistent with what the character actually knew, felt, and believed. Imitating the person’s mannerisms and oddities would be great; but if you are not confident acting out, then just stick to the facts. If in acting you feel compelled to adopt a different accent, just keep it respectable. Your priority should be that we can understand you. Avoid accents if we’ll just end up laughing all the time.

Why the need for costumes?

This is my way of emphasizing the importance of the witnesses in the trial. Being a witness is a pretty big deal since everything revolves around you. This is a task I’d like to put your whole effort into — mind, body, heart, and soul! Good luck!

If I get impeached, does that mean I fail?

Not necessarily. Impeachment could mean either (a) you did well but the lawyer did a more mind-blasting job, or (b) you didn’t do too well as a witness. I can determine which one it is by observing your actual performance. If it’s scenario A, you have nothing to worry about. Scenario B isn’t too good for you.

Our team has only one witness while the other side has two (one is a wildcard). How do we make up for this?

First off, more witnesses isn’t always better. Just sayin’.

Second, there will be a segment towards the end of the mock trial when the judge will call for additional witnesses. If your team has no wildcard, you have the option of calling back any witness from the opposing team for further cross examination. Sounds good too, right?

What happens when our client gets impeached?

You lose the case, plain and simple. Don’t worry about getting impeached at the beginning though — the case for impeachment is also something that has to be proved.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

When can we consult?

Consultation is on purely appointment basis only. I prefer lunch time. Otherwise, I am opening up my Facebook to school work. Feel free to leave me a message. YM and e-mail work fine as well.

So what are we fighting for, exactly?

Not much. Just these:

A +0.50 bonus to your project score. This makes an A++ easy to attain. This project is 40% (!) of your class standing.
An advantage in the all-essay periodic exam. You will have 25% less to answer.

As I said, not much.

Moreover, there are special category awards as well:

MODEL, OUTSTANDING, AND BEST INDIVIDUAL HONORS. The following honors are up for grabs, and each one corresponds to a +0.50 in their final grade for the activity:

MODEL JUDGE (only one for all sections)
OUTSTANDING LAWYER (one per class)
OUTSTANDING WITNESS (two per class)
BEST CLIENT (this is per historical figure, ie. BEST MANGAL PANDEY, BEST CHARLES CANNING, etc.)

Interesting yet? Do well and be awesome.

Must Read: Mary’s Missing Lunch

Posted by mbsperez on 23 November 2010

This whimsical script gives you a pretty good idea of how a trial goes. Good luck!

Mock trial time table update (as of Nov 21)

Posted by mbsperez on 21 November 2010

Good evening, dear students!

I’ve made some updates to our time table in response to the holiday last November 16 and the addition of classes this coming Saturday, November 27.

Camia, who lost a day last November 16, will be back on schedule thanks to the classes on November 27.

Dahlia and Ilang, who lost November 16 and have no additional day to make up for it, will have the biggest adjustment. I decided to move your schedule down. I didn’t want to compromise our preparation time. This activity isn’t something you can possibly cram. Moreover, I’d like to spend as much time with the groups as possible. Rescheduling our verdict day is a problem with a solution, and we’ll discuss it this coming week.

Here are the changes in full: