
   Below are some comments on the first Montserrat writing
assigment.  The three "subscores" refer to the following "rubric"

   35 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   35 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely
          
   30 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

Let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to
discuss any of the comments. 

   I will be announcing a "second stage" of this assignment
tomorrow where you will add an "I say" section with a due date
of September 20.  The final grade on the assignment will be based
only on the revised and supplemented version, so in cases where
this grade might be lower than you expected, you will have a
chance to bring it up. 
                                     John Little

    Rubric:
    
    35 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    35 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely
          
    30 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented
    
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
   
    Matthew Lane
    
    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what 
          Francis said without "editorializing."
   
    32/35 -- Also very good; the suggestions I have are:
    
          (1) You might have said a few more words to make the connection
          that a "throw-away culture" is an expression of excessive
          anthropocentrism.  There's a direct connection between
          selfishness/anthropocentrism and wanting to consume as
          many resources as we can.  But the "throw-away culture"
          is something slightly different.  The point there is that
          we're constantly seeking out new things and nothing is made to 
          last, in addition to the point you bring out about the 
          generation of waste and pollution in the environment. 
    
          (2) It have been good to say more about what Francis meant by
          the "Promethean vision of mastery over the world" that
          he identified as a shortcoming of a certain (mis)reading
          of "Christian anthropology."  You might have connected
          this with the Greek myth of Prometheus, the creator
          of mankind, who later stole fire from the gods on Mount 
          Olympus to give to humans.  In Greek mythology, he is 
          often seen as representing humanity's tendency to turn 
          away from the gods and to try to take over their role
          as rulers of the world.  
          
    27/30 -- Generally good technically too.  Just a few rather minor points:
          
          2nd paragraph, 1st sentence:  "man as a whole" might be
          better as "mankind as a whole"
          
          "a man centered view of the world" should have a hyphen, and
          let's be gender-inclusive:  "human-centered" 
          
          Next sentence:  "humanities" should be the possessive:
          "humanity's"
             
          See comment (1) above.  What you say to make the connection is:   
          "This exemplifies Francis' idea of `excessive anthropocentrism' 
          as man has grown accustomed to making use of things for their 
          own personal need without regarding the pollution and filth that 
          these actions leave on the natural world."  
          But this could be stronger.  The "as" is a weak connection.
          Don't you really mean something more like "because."  Then,
          "man" (singular) does not agree with "their" (plural).  What
          "actions" do you mean specifically?  Finally, "on the natural world"
          sounds a bit odd.
          
    94/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%    

    Christian Boire 
    
    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
             Francis said without "editorializing"
          
    32/35 -- (1) I think you might have misunderstood (or misstated)
             what Francis was saying about the need for honesty
             and truth in political and scientific discussions of 
             possible impacts of projects.  One idea was that those
             discussions should not only include consideration of whether
             the proposed project is legal; they should also include
             assessments of the possible risks.  
    
             (2) When you get to discussing the principle from the Rio
             Declaration, you should probably use the name that has
             become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
             side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
             cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
             proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
             referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
             one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
             Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
             would be good to be able to refer to it that way.
             
    20/30 -- Your writing is OK, but there are a number of small things
             to work on.  One main issue is how you handle the quotations.
             Try to integrate them into your sentences better.
             
             To identify the source of the passage, use the paragraph
             number or the page number, not "passage 1."
             
             Also in the first sentence, you don't want "it starts off" as the 
             beginning of the main clause -- something like "Francis 
             indirectly emphasizes current dangers to the enviroment"
             would be much stronger.
             
             The next quotation is *not* actually a sentence fragment 
             (it's a complete sentence with subject and verb).
             
             The next sentence where you take up the quotation again:
             "Instead, to stop environmental deterioration he finishes the 
             sentence 'in favour of policies developed and debated by all 
             interested parties.' " just does not work together as you wrote it.  
             You do not need to say "he finishes the sentence" here.  The "in 
             favour of" is referring back to the "interventions" and saying 
             "instead, we need to ... ."  You could say something like "Instead, 
             Francis asserts that to stop enviromental deterioration, we need 
             policies "developed and debated by all interested parties."
             
             2nd paragraph:  "reigning opinion" is a strange word choice
             
             "This means that construction projects should be debated on 
             the basis of honesty, not off of its legality."  I don't know 
             what "debated on the basis of honesty" means. I believe the 
             underlying point is that Francis is saying everyone should
             adhere to high standards of honesty in discussing risks.
             Then "not off of its legality" is not correct because
             "its" is singular, but "projects" is plural.  Please don't
             say "off of" either.  Also see comment (1) above.  I'm not
             sure you completely understood what Francis was saying here.
             
             Next-to-last paragraph:
             "scrap up" -- do you mean "scrape up?"
             
             Last sentence:  "Following this idea of policy making Francis 
             believes is how to drastically slow down our environmental damage."
             "policy making" should probably be hyphenated
             use commas around "Francis believes"
             "is how to" -- maybe "is a way to"
             Finally, I think what Francis is proposing here is not just a
             way to "slow down ... environmental damage."  It is a whole
             different way to think about the process of assessing and 
             managing environmental risks.  
             
    88/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    Elizabeth Daskalakis
    
    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
             Francis said without "editorializing," although I do sense
             that you strongly agree with at least part of what he is saying.
             
    35/35 -- You clearly understand Francis' main points.  Adding the discussion of 
             the Greek Prometheus myth is very good.  However, contrary to one of the
             things you say, in some versions of the myth, the idea is indeed that 
             humans are "trying to overthrow" the power of the Olympian gods with 
             Prometheus' help.

    28/30 -- Your writing is strong and generally very fluent.  A couple of small points:

    End of first paragraph:  "human's" should be either "humans'" (plural possessive)
    or "humanity's"

    The sentence at the top of page 2:  "In this section of the passage, Francis is
    highlighting the idea that instead of taking a nurturing approach to care for the
    world as the creation story in the Bible calls for, he argues that humans have drawn
    from Promethean ideals, where power is more important than living in what God created."
    the "he argues that" is not correct because everything after the preceding comma
    is the opposite of the "taking a nurturing approach ... "

    98/100


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    Joe Lang


    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what Francis said without
             "editorializing."  But your discussion doesn't do a very complete job
             of presenting all the ideas in your passage.

    25/35 -- You never really discuss what Francis says about honesty and openness
             in decision-making about environmental issues or the need to get 
             all "stake-holders" in on the development of policy.
             
             The biggest issue here is that I don't think you really came to grips
             with the discussion of the "precautionary principle" from the Rio Declaration.
             Francis makes the centerpiece of the passage you were summarizing, so it
             deserves a more detailed treatment.
             
             You never mention the Rio Declaration or the name "precautionary principle."
             There is also a lot more involved than saying "just because science has
             not proven something does not mean that people have the right to just do
             what they want."  In fact the precautionary principle says that to prevent
             environmental degradation, proposed projects should be rejected if there
             is even a reasonable chance they might cause harm.  In effect, the burden
             of proof is shifted to the proponents of the proposal -- they have to show
             that the project will definitely not cause harm in order for it to continue.
             This is similar to the rationale behind Environmental Impact Studies, etc.
             This part of what you say is just not detailed enough, and it's not 
             really a question of "multiple sources of proof" as you say toward the end
             of that paragraph. 

    27/30 -- Generally good here, but there are a few small points:

             Your first sentence is overly general and doesn't add to what you are saying.
             You could start with some background on the Laudato Si' letter.

             Second sentence:  Laudato Si' has been issued in booklet form, but
             it's technically an encyclical letter, not a "book."

             At bottom of page 1:  "There should be a factor that if the project 
             is skeptical that there should be no question that it is nullified 
             or postponed."   Word choices: "factor" is vague--not sure what you 
             meant.  Also, the word "skeptical" is not what you want here (a person 
             is skeptical when they doubt something; a project cannot be skeptical).  
             I think you meant "questionable" or "doubtful" but questionable in
             what way?  See the comment above about the precautionary principle.
    
    87/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
            
    Connor Degenhardt      
    
    30/35 -- You did a reasonably good job here; the paper presents what Francis 
             said without (too much) "editorializing."  But there are 
             some sweeping general statements that go beyond what your 
             passage is actually discussing.  For instance your first sentence 
             is both overly broad ("one of the most widely discussed topics
             in recent years") and also, strangely enough, too specific (Francis 
             is *not* only talking about climate change).  The last sentence
             is overly dramatic ("destroyed the modern world" -- I doubt 
             Francis would use that language).
                          
    30/35 -- You say "A major claim from the Pope's letter regards anthropocentrism 
             as the major cause contributing to climate change, and preventing efforts 
             to preserve the environment."  Does he really say that here?  If 
             you aren't referring to this passage specifically, what are you 
             referring to?  Read the passage again carefully.  I think you are 
             claiming too much there.  
    
             It have been good to say more about what Francis meant by
             the "Promethean vision of mastery over the world" that
             he identified as a shortcoming of a certain (mis)reading
             of "Christian anthropology."  You might have connected
             this with the Greek myth of Prometheus, the creator
             of mankind, who later stole fire from the gods on Mount
             Olympus to give to humans.  In Greek mythology, he is
             often seen as representing humanity's tendency to turn
             away from the gods and to try to take over their role
             as rulers of the world.  
             
    25/30 -- There are several places where you use direct quotations from
             the Laudato Si' letter without identifying them ("Promethean
             vision of mastery over the world" is one).  It's good to get 
             in the habit of being more careful about this.  Put the phrase 
             in quotation marks and identify where you found it (here by the 
             paragraph or page number within the letter). 
             
             There are also some writing issues to work on.  For instance,
             this sentence from the last paragraph:  "Dominion suggests the 
             exploitation for personal gain of the environment, whatever 
             humans can possibly do, they will do if it benefits them."
             This is pretty close to things I was saying in class, of course(!)
             It also needs to be broken up or re-punctuated to keep it from
             being a run-on sentence.  First, "Dominion" is another 
             direct quotation from the text.  Then, "exploitation for
             personal gain of the environment" is easy to misread because
             one might think "of the environment" refers to "gain."  I
             think "exploitation of the environment for personal gain"
             is clearer.  The next part, "whatever humans can possibly 
             do ... " could be a separate sentence, or you could separate
             it from the first part with a semicolon. But you could also
             say more because this brings in a different idea.  Namely,
             you are also suggesting that a sense of "dominion" means that 
             humans do not feel limited by morality or any sense of obligation 
             to keep the interests of other creatures in mind.  There's
             a lot going on there!
             
    85/100        
    
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    
    Madison Ward
    
    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
             Francis said without "editorializing."
             
    33/35 -- When you get to discussing the principle from the Rio
             Declaration, you should probably use the name that has
             become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
             side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
             cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
             proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
             referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
             one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
             Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
             would be good to be able to refer to it that way.

             It would also be good to mention the point that the discussion 
             of projects should not stop with considering whether the proposal
             is legal or not.

    26/30 -- Your writing is generally very good, but the first paragraph
             takes a long time to get to the point (the first two sentences are
             too general).  You could tighten them up by saying "Pope Francis,
             in his letter Laudato Si' on the environment and human ecology, 
             states his observations."  (Or you could move the "on the 
             environment and human ecology" to the end of the sentence if
             you think it reads better that way.)
             
             There are a few other places too where your transitions could 
             be stronger and smoother.  For instance the first sentence of the second 
             paragraph does not need the "expresses his beliefs" since you have
             already established that part of what he is saying in the letter
             is his opinion in the first paragraph.  And if that is no longer
             there, you could use a more vivid verb than "says" for the rest
             of it.  

             In the middle of the second paragraph, the sentence "Another point 
             Francis raises is the issue of interventions" is repetitive since
             you have raised that before.  That sentence could be deleted. 

    94/100   

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    Ryan Gifford
 
    35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
             Francis said without too much "editorializing," although I have the
             impression that you were agreeing with the letter most of the time.
             
    34/35 -- What you say about shifting from a focus on recovery to 
             a focus on prevention is right on the mark.  But
             when you get to discussing the principle from the Rio
             Declaration, you should probably also use the name that has
             become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
             side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
             cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
             proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
             referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
             one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
             Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
             would be good to be able to refer to it that way.

             It would also be good to mention the point that the discussion 
             of projects should not stop with considering whether the proposal
             is legal or not.
         
    27/30    Your first sentence gets the paper off to a slow start. 
             The second sentence packs a lot of (maybe too many) ideas.
             You might think of redistributing the ideas something like
             this to get off to a stronger start:

             "Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical letter Laudato Si' is addressed
             to the whole human population of the earth.  It conveys the 
             urgency of taking action and forming a universal plan to improve
             the environmental degradation that society has allowed to become 
             a hazard to the wellbeing of humans and the natural world."  

             Note:  I added a "the" before "environmental degradation;" I also
             spelled out whose wellbeing is in question.

     96/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
     Emily Maher

     35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
              Francis said without too much "editorializing," although I have the
              impression that you were agreeing with the letter most of the time.
             
     34/35 -- When you get to discussing the principle from the Rio
              Declaration, you should probably also use the name that has
              become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
              side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
              cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
              proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
              referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
              one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
              Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
              would be good to be able to refer to it that way.

              It is good that you mention the point that the discussion 
              of projects should not stop with considering whether the proposal
              is legal or not.

     28/30 -- Your writing is generally very good here.  The first paragraph could
              be tightened up, though, to get things off to a faster start.  
              For instance, 
                   
              "Pope Francis' recent encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ critiques the ways 
              people are treating the earth and suggests ways that they can create 
              change and protect the earth."

              (The main action of your first sentence was the fact that Francis
              wrote the encyclical letter, but you don't really need to say that.
              The point that he addresses his concerns about humanity and the 
              environment is included in the idea of the second sentence and 
              that is more specific and direct, so ... )

              A few other minor points:

              (1) The sentence where you included the link to the discussion of 
              the Rio Declaration does not have a verb -- you need something like
              "included" before the "a set of principles ... "

              (2) The final paragraph is a sort of repetition and summing up of
              the points made before.  When you add an "I say" portion, you probably
              won't need that. 

     97/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    
     Lily Droesch

     35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what
              Francis said without too much "editorializing."

     25/35 -- But the paper is closer to a general summary of the Laudato Si'
              letter than it is to a summary of the particular passage 1.
              The second paragraph, in particular, is entirely general and
              does not deal with the specific topics discussed in your
              passage.  You get to that eventually with the discussion
              of the Rio Declaration, and that part of the paper is 
              good.  But you don't really address the ideas from the passage
              that come before the discussion of the "precautionary principle."
              You don't explain Francis' ideas about the need for openness
              and honesty in decision-making, for instance, or the need
              to go beyond thinking what is allowed by current laws.    

     25/30 -- The first paragraph is a weak start and very choppy -- short 
              declarative sentences all similar in form.  Try to use more 
              varied sentence structures!  Plus, what you are saying there is 
              not very interesting or relevant to your passage.  Yes, Francis 
              wrote Laudato Si' in 2015.  But why is that the first thing you 
              want to say?  Your first sentence should do a better job of capturing 
              the reader's interest and preparing the way for the ideas to be presented 
              later.  

              Also, the final paragraph is a sort of repetition and summing up of
              the points made before.  When you add an "I say" portion, you probably
              won't need that. 

     85/100

 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
             
     Grace Peluso

     33/35 -- You did a generally good job here; the paper presents what
              Francis said without too much "editorializing."  However, 
              the beginning of your second paragraph (the "we have this 
              subconscious idea ... " part in particular) seems like a statement
              of your own opinion.  It's pretty close to what Francis is saying, of 
              course, in his idea of "excessive anthropomorphism."  But
              the idea here was to write a "they say" presentation of Francis'
              points from the passage you chose.  So it would be better to 
              add something here so the reader will know for sure that you are
              referring to what Francis said, not to your own point of 
              view or to a generally-held opinion.      
      
     28/35 -- There is too much general discussion here and not enough 
              explanation of exactly what Francis meant by the words in this passage.  

              The discussion of "anthropocentrism" is good, but strictly 
              speaking, I think you can be "anthropocentric" without thinking
              that humans "hold all power over all living beings and creatures 
              on earth as well as the earth itself."  That's going farther
              than just saying that humans are the center and most important
              part of the natural world.  On the other hand, part of what
              Francis means by the "excessive anthropocentrism" is definitely
              that attitude that we hold all the power.  To make the connection, 
              you might have mentioned where Francis thinks that "excessive 
              anthropocentrism" comes from (misinterpretations of things
              in the Bible in particular).

              Specifically, it have been good to say more about what Francis meant by
              the "Promethean vision of mastery over the world" that
              he identified as a shortcoming of a certain (mis)reading
              of "Christian anthropology."  You might have connected
              this with the Greek myth of Prometheus, the creator
              of mankind, who later stole fire from the gods on Mount 
              Olympus to give to humans.  In Greek mythology, he is 
              often seen as representing humanity's tendency to turn 
              away from the gods and to try to take over their role
              as rulers of the world.  Francis is referring to ways of understanding
              that myth, but you should not assume the reader knows what he
              is referring to.  (See point 1 in the Guidelines for the assignment.)

              You also address some of what "responsible stewardship" would
              entail, but you never use those words explicitly, so the connection
              to what Francis says is not as direct as it could be.  

     27/30 -- You use a number of direct quotations from Francis' letter without
              identifying the exact source.  In the directions, I gave an
              example of how to do that using the page number or paragraph 
              number.  It's good to get in the habit of documenting your sources more 
              carefully.  

              The first paragraph is kind of a slow start toward your main 
              points.   

     88/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

     Genevieve Gibbons

     28/35 -- I'm not sure you understood the assignment very well.  The idea was
              to write a summary of one of the written passages for an educated adult.  
              It sounds to me as though you are reporting on an *interview* with Francis
              that touched on those issues.  And the way you are addressing the 
              readers -- "Many of you may not understand what the Rio Declaration is"
              -- might seem rather condescending(!)  

     25/35 -- I think you misunderstood what Francis meant about "interventions"
              (look carefully: it's not "inventions" as you say in your second paragraph).  
              He's contrasting the idea of going in and "fixing things" after problems
              develop with the idea of prevention and taking precautions in order
              to keep problems from happening. 

              You never really discuss what Francis says about honesty and openness
              in decision-making about environmental issues or the need to get 
              all "stake-holders" in on the development of policy.
             
              The biggest issue here is that I don't think you really came to grips
              with the discussion of the "precautionary principle" from the Rio Declaration.
              Francis makes the centerpiece of the passage you were summarizing, so it
              deserves a (much!) more detailed treatment. That precautionary principle 
              says that to prevent environmental degradation, proposed projects for
              building new factories, pipelines, etc. should be rejected if there
              is even a reasonable chance they might cause environmental harm.  In 
              effect, the burden of proof is shifted to the proponents of the 
              proposal -- they have to show that the project will definitely not 
              cause harm in order for it to continue.  This is a lot of the rationale 
              behind Environmental Impact Studies, etc.  This part of what you say is 
              just not detailed enough.

     25/30 -- There are a number of writing issues we will need to work on too:

              The first paragraph is overly general and does not really address
              the main points from the passage you are addressing.

              "countless points" is an exaggeration!

              In the second paragraph, "As well as the Rio Declaration of 1992"
              is not a complete sentence.  I know that it's common to add something
              like this after a preceding sentence in common speech.  But I would
              say it's better to avoid this in formal writing unless you have a 
              good reason for doing it (for instance because you want to imitate
              what someone said out loud).  

              "And his main point, about the way money and costs shouldn’t drive 
              people or give them motives" is also a sentence fragment -- no main
              verb.  But more importantly, what were you trying to say?  I
              don't understand what "give them motives" means?  Give them motives
              for what?    

              Third paragraph:  "He also adds a node to the problem ... "  ?  I 
              don't know what you mean there -- "node" is not the word you want, 
              but I can't really suggest a replacement without knowing what 
              you were trying to say.  

              

     78/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     Andrew Sisitzky

     35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what 
              Francis said without "editorializing."

     33/35 -- It have been good to say more about what Francis meant by
              the "Promethean vision of mastery over the world" that
              he identified as a shortcoming of a certain (mis)reading
              of "Christian anthropology."  You might have connected
              this with the Greek myth of Prometheus, the creator
              of mankind, who later stole fire from the gods on Mount 
              Olympus to give to humans.  In Greek mythology, he is 
              often seen as representing humanity's tendency to turn 
              away from the gods and to try to take over their role
              as rulers of the world. 

              "Christian anthropology" refers to the way Christianity
              has described the place of man in the world.  The connection
              with the previous paragraph is really ultimately the 
              interpretations of the verse from Genesis that we discussed
              briefly in class. You're essentially right to say that Francis
              is not blaming Christianity for the problems we are facing.
              But I think he would say that the way Christian teachings
              have sometimes been interpreted has contributed to those problems. 
              The question is: what does "dominion" over the animals and the 
              rest of the world mean in Genesis 1:26?   Francis
              is definitely saying that that verse has been misinterpreted and 
              that "dominion" should be understood as a position of responsible
              stewardship instead of a position of absolute power.  

     28/30 -- Your writing is generally fluent and strong.  The main comment
              I have there is that your essay is one very long and complicated
              paragraph.  Split it up where the main idea changes or where
              there are transitions.

              A minor point:  "Building off of his claim" -- this is 
              a sort of "pet peeve" for me, but don't you "build on"
              something?  Where did "build off of" come from?  

     96/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     Eve Smith 

     33/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what 
              Francis said without "editorializing" (with the possible
              exception of the final paragraph).

     33/35 -- When you get to discussing the principle from the Rio
              Declaration, you should probably use the name that has
              become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
              side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
              cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
              proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
              referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
              one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
              Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
              would be good to be able to refer to it that way.

              Also, technically, the Rio Declaration was more of a 
              "statement of principles" -- it did not actually give
              authority to anyone to treat proposals for environmentally
              sensitive projects the way Francis describes.  The regulations
              to do that were supposed to be enacted as laws in each of 
              the countries agreeing to the declaration.  For instance, 
              the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. requiring
              environmental impact studies as part of the assessment of 
              proposed projects is close to this in spirit.    

              It would also be good to mention the point that the discussion 
              of projects should not stop with considering whether the proposal
              is legal or not.

              In the last paragraph, you focus on things that could be
              done to "fix" environmental problems.  But isn't Francis
              really more determined to get people to prevent those problems
              from happening in the first place?

     29/30 -- Your writing is generally very good.  But there are a few
              small slips that detract a bit from the overall impression it makes.  
                
              Toward top of page 2 -- "advocator" should be "advocate"

              Middle of page 2 -- "environmentally cautious enough to ensue" --
              "ensue" is not the word you want -- maybe "pursue?"  

     95/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     Najee Quashie

     22/35 -- I'm not sure you understood the assignment very well. Go back and
              read the instructions posted on the course homepage.  Your paper is 
              closer to a series of general impressions based on the Laudato Si' letter than 
              it is to a summary of either of the particular passages 1 and 2 I 
              wanted you to choose from.  What you are saying is really entirely general 
              and does not deal with the specific topics discussed in either 
              passage.  Plus, a large proportion of what you say is stated as
              fact or opinion from some unspecified source, so it's not
              really a "they say" discussion of the points from a section of
              Laudato Si'.  Your very first sentence, "Homo sapiens think of the 
              environment as an unlimited, ever evolving aspect of our world that 
              is simply to say not so."  Whose point of view is this?  You might 
              infer that Francis thinks something like that, but does he actually 
              say something like this anywhere?  If so, where?

     30/35 -- I think you understand what Francis was trying to say as a whole
              in this letter.  But again, you're not engaging with the specifics
              of either of the two passages.

     27/30 -- The writing is generally good and engaging.  However, you are writing
              a different sort of paper from what was called for.  The idea was
              to closely summarize what Francis was saying in a particular passage.

              A smaller point:  Please don't call Laudato Si' a "novel"(!)  A novel 
              is a book-length work of fiction.  This is a papal encyclical letter, 
              a very different form of written work.

     79/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     
     Angel Chavez

     22/35 -- I'm not sure you understood the assignment very well. Go back and
              read the instructions posted on the course homepage.  Your paper uses
              elements of both of the particular passages 1 and 2 I wanted you to choose 
              from but it does not really dig into either one of them in detail.  (Note
              that the "excessive anthropocentrism" idea is from passage 2 while 
              Francis' mention of the Rio Declaration comes from passage 1.)  

              The final paragraph is really heavily focused on the "editorializing"
              you were supposed to avoid!

     30/35 -- Because you do focus on the Rio Declaration, I think you probably 
              thought of your essay as dealing with topic 1.  I think you do 
              understand Francis' main ideas there.  

              But you never discuss what Francis says about honesty and openness 
              in decision-making about environmental issues or the need to get 
              all "stake-holders" in on the development of policy.  You don't
              mention the idea that decisions should be made on the basis of 
              more than just whether a proposed action is legal.  
             
              The biggest issue here is that I don't think you really came to grips
              with the discussion of the "precautionary principle" from the Rio Declaration.
              Francis makes the centerpiece of the passage you were summarizing, so it
              deserves a more detailed treatment. That principle says that, to prevent
              environmental degradation, proposed projects should be rejected if there
              is even a reasonable chance they might cause harm.  In effect, the burden
              of proof is shifted to the proponents of the proposal -- they have to show
              that the project will definitely not cause harm in order for it to continue.
              This is similar to the rationale behind Environmental Impact Studies, etc.

     27/30 -- Your writing is generally good. However, the first sentence of
              the essay is not a complete sentence.  The first paragraph as a whole
              is also more "editorializing" because you are making some very 
              general claims that don't really correspond to anything Francis
              is saying in either passage.  

     79/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     Kyle Copeland

     32/35 -- You did a generally good job here; the paper presents what 
              Francis said in your passage without too much "editorializing."
              But there were several places where you seem to be saying more
              than what he does and injecting what might be your own views.
              See some of the comments and questions in the writing section below.

     30/35 -- It have been good to say more about what Francis meant by
              the "Promethean vision of mastery over the world" that
              he identified as a shortcoming of a certain (mis)reading
              of "Christian anthropology."  You might have connected
              this with the Greek myth of Prometheus, the creator
              of mankind, who later stole fire from the gods on Mount 
              Olympus to give to humans.  In Greek mythology, he is 
              often seen as representing humanity's tendency to turn 
              away from the gods and to try to take over their role
              as rulers of the world.  Francis is referring to ways of understanding
              that myth, but you should not assume the reader knows what he
              is referring to.  (See point 1 in the Guidelines for the assignment.)

     25/30 -- In the first paragraph, "and a little concept he called 'excessive 
              anthropocentrism'" sounds a bit snarky.  Are you trying to poke
              fun at Francis for using big words?  (I think he's trying to
              emphasize how serious the issue is.)

              The second paragraph is devoted pretty much entirely to definitions
              of words.  That's OK, but I think it would actually be more 
              effective to work the definitions into the discussion of 
              Francis' points as the words in question come up.

              You spend quite a bit of time in the second paragraph discussing
              the word "modernity" before concluding that it's a way of 
              saying "the present era."  Was all of that necessary?  (By the 
              way, in the humanities people generally use the word "modernity"
              to refer to essentially anything after the Renaissance, i.e. post-1500 
              or so, up to the present, or perhaps the recent past.)

              I think something went wrong with the sentence "According to Francis, 
              he has said and believes that our world has no place for other tyrannical 
              creatures besides human beings."  First the "he has said and believes"
              is unnecessary since you included the "according to Francis" too.  But more
              importantly, where exactly does he say anything like that?
              And are you claiming that he thinks it is OK for human beings to 
              be tyrannical??

              Whose *goal* is it for humans to be stewards of the earth?  God's goal?
              I think Francis might believe that but it would be good to back
              that up with specific evidence.

              In the last paragraph -- "promethean-esk" is misspelled, and it's not 
              really a word anyway.  "Promethean" is already an adjective, so the 
              "-esque" is superfluous.  (Also see the comment above.)

     87/100

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

     
     Logan Milliken

     35/35 -- You did a good job here; the paper presents what 
              Francis said without "editorializing."

     33/35 -- You clearly understand what Francis was trying to say 
              in the first passage.  When you arrive at discussing the 
              principle from the Rio Declaration, you should probably use 
              the name that has become attached to the idea that we should err on the 
              side of caution and not proceed with projects that might
              cause environmental damage, even if it has not been scientifically
              proved that that will be the result.  This is now almost always
              referred to as the ``precautionary principle.''  It is only
              one aspect of what was put into the document produced at the
              Rio summit, but it has provoked a lot of discussion and it
              would be good to be able to refer to it that way.

     25/30 -- There are a few writing issues to work on. 

              In the first paragraph, it would be good to find a different way
              to say that Francis "goes in depth about the importance ... " Say
              "Francis stresses the importance ... " or "Francis emphasizes ... "

              Second paragraph:  "Francis also makes strong points towards 
              the ethics of our decisions."  I'm not quite sure what that
              means.  Are you saying that ethical considerations should guide
              our decisions?  (That's certainly consistent with what Francis
              says.)  This sentence also overlaps the one at the start of the
              next paragraph to a degree that is not ideal.  

              Third paragraph:  What does it mean to "demonstrate a firm belief 
              of morals"?  Did you mean "belief in morals"?  "belief in the 
              importance of guidance from morals"?  ... 

              Later: In "... made made true and unbiasedly, ... ," the word
              "true" should be "truly" since it is also an adverb modifying
              the verb "made."

              You say:  "Francis brings into question just because we can do
              something, does not necessarily mean that we should."  This doesn't
              really work.  Saying something like  "Francis questions whether we should
              do something just because we can do it" would be a better sentence.
              But there is another issue here too.  Do you mean "can" in the sense 
              that "we are allowed to?" If so, then this sentence is not adding 
              too much to the one before and it seems repetitive.  If you mean "can"
              in the sense that "we are able to" (for example, because we have
              the technology to do it), then that is a different question
              and it calls for more discussion.   

              The final paragraph is a sort of repetition and summing up of
              the points made before.  When you add an "I say" portion, you probably
              won't need that.

     93/100 
 
              








              
















     

      


       
              
                             

     










 

     
   
                
             
    
             
    
