Analyzing Historical Art Through Critical Thinking: The Washington High School Mural Controversy

Assignment
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 3
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2022). Critical thinking: A students introduction (7th ed.). McGraw Hill Education. https://ambassadored.vitalsource.com/books/9781264956326Links to an external site.

Instructions
Introduction
“Observation is key to diagnosis, and art can teach students to slow down and really look,” said Craig Klugman, a bioethicist and medical anthropologist at DePaul University who is a co-author of a study on using art to enhance the observational skills of nursing students. “A clinician might notice one thing about a patient, such as dirty hands or torn clothes, and jump to conclusions without looking more closely. We found that art can teach students to see both the big picture and small details that can be easily overlooked,” he said. In physical examinations, it’s important for clinicians to remove this type of bias, explained Klugman, in order to make only evidence-based observations that are free of bias (Krugman & Beckmann-Mendez, 2015).
George Washington High School in San Francisco, California, is the site of a mural, “Life of Washington,” painted by Depression-era artist Victor Arnautoff. In 2018, the mural became the subject of controversy when some parents and students wanted the murals removed as racially and ethnically offensive while others vigorously defended the murals (Tucker, 2019)
Nancy Truong, a 2013 graduate of the school. “This mural is not teaching students about the history of slavery and indigenous genocide under George Washington or other white settlers. Instead, it is teaching students to normalize violence and death of our black and indigenous community” (Tucker, 2019, para. 4).
Supporters argued the historic work is an important piece of art that is actually critical of oppression and imperialism and that destroying it or covering it equates to book burning. “’They should not be removed,’ said George Wright. ‘Removing them represents censorship as well as a reactionary moment in time’” (Tucker, 2019, More Mural Coverage section ).
Do an online search about this controversy (suggested search ). Be sure to look at the murals, taking careful note of the mural panels contained in them. Should the panels be removed or covered over, or should they stay in place? With whom do you agree, and why?   
Think: Ask yourself: What do I see? What do I see that makes me think that? What more do I see? Examine your reasoning. Does it demonstrate the important standards of critical thinking? What are your premises for your opinion? Do you make reasonable inferences from the observed facts? Are your assumptions warranted? 
Write: Write a short paper in which you express your conclusion about what should be done with these murals.
Be sure to include your reasons and evidence (in the form of references with in-text citations) that supports your opinion.
At the end of your paper, include a summary and diagram of your argument.
This paper must be no more than 300 words, or about 1.5 pages in length, not including the title page diagram and reference page.
Writing Requirements
Length: 1.5 pages
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (lesson/textbook citation and outside source citation in APA format)
Grading
This assignment will be graded based on the W3 Assignment grading rubric below.
Outcomes
CO 2: Apply argument diagramming techniques to reveal vagueness and ambiguity.
CO 3: Analyze deductive and inductive reasoning structures.
CO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying standard tests.

References
Klugman, C. M., & Beckmann-Mendez, D. One thousand words: Evaluating an interdisciplinary art education program. Journal of Nursing Education, 54(4): 220–223. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150318-06 
Tucker, J. (2019, July 3). San Francisco school board votes to destroy controversial Washington High mural. San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-school-board-votes-to-destroy-14050025.php
Rubric
Supporting Opinions Rubric
Supporting Opinions Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFocus

15 pts
Excellent
Addresses all aspects of the assignment. The Paper is consistently and strongly explains in detail the essential question of what is to be done with the murals.
13 pts
Good
Addresses most aspects of the assignment. The Paper is somewhat consistent in explaining the essential question of what is to be done with the murals.
9 pts
Needs Improvement
Addresses few aspects of the assignment. The Paper is does not provide consistent details about the essential question of what is to be done with the murals.
0 pts
Unacceptable
Paper is not focused on the essential question of what is to be done with the murals.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence

15 pts
Excellent
Addresses all aspects of the assignment with clear and accurate minimum 3 references, specific observations of all or parts of the murals in ways that are accurate and relevant to the writer’s conclusion and contribute to a deeper understanding of the writer’s conclusion.
13 pts
Good
Addresses most aspects of the assignment with references, specific observations for some parts of the murals in ways that are accurate and relevant to the writer’s conclusion and contribute to an understanding of the writer’s conclusion. Two references were used.
9 pts
Needs Improvement
Addresses few aspects of the assignment with only one references, specific observations of all or parts of the murals in ways that are accurate and relevant to the writer’s conclusion and contribute to an understanding of the writer’s conclusion.
0 pts
Unacceptable
Paper does not reference specific observations of all or parts of the murals

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoning

15 pts
Excellent
The writing explains the argument clearly. It is made explicit which claims are being used as premises, and how these premises are supposed to support the conclusion. New premises are each introduced in new paragraphs or sections. If there are sub-arguments, it is made explicit which argument is the main one, and which are the secondary ones.
13 pts
Good
The writing explains the argument. It is clear which claims are being used as premises, and how these premises support the conclusion. Usually, new premises are introduced in new paragraphs or sections. If there are sub-arguments, it is clear which argument is the main one, and which are the secondary ones. .
9 pts
Needs Improvement
The writing does not explain the argument clearly It is somewhat unclear which claims are being used as premises, and/or how these premises support the conclusion. Separate premises are lumped together in the same paragraphs or sections. If there are sub-arguments, it is not clear which argument is the main one and which are the secondary ones.
0 pts
Unacceptable
No clear argument was given. Or did not explain how the premises support the conclusion. Premises are discussed randomly, or not at all. There seem to be many arguments, and it is completely unclear which is the main one.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary

15 pts
Excellent
Successfully summarizes the argument; breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts. The connections between the parts are clear and highly accurate.
13 pts
Good
Successfully summarizes the argument; breaks the argument, issue, or problem into relevant parts. The connections are not formed clearly for all parts.
9 pts
Needs Improvement
Summary is present but some parts may be missing or unclear. Or the connections between the parts are somewhat accurate.
0 pts
Unacceptable
The parts identified are not the correct and/or relevant ones. Or the connections between the parts are completely inaccurate.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiagram

5 pts
Excellent
The complete diagram accurately reflects if the argument is inductive or deductive.
4 pts
Good
The diagram reflects if the argument is inductive or deductive. Not all parts are accurate.
3 pts
Needs Improvement
The diagram is present but is not completely accurate as to the type of argument or relation of premises and conclusions
0 pts
Unacceptable
No diagram is presented.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClarity

5 pts
Excellent
Key concepts and theories are accurately and completely explained. Good, clear examples are used to illuminate concepts and issues. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate.
4 pts
Good
Key concepts and theories are explained. Examples are clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate.
3 pts
Needs Improvement
Key concepts and theories are not explained. Examples are not clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is mostly accurate.
0 pts
Unacceptable
The author does not acknowledge that key words have precise meanings. Information (names, facts, etc.) is inaccurate.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics

5 pts
Excellent
All sentences are complete and grammatical. All words are chosen for their precise meanings. All new or unusual terms are well-defined. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread, and has no errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang.
4 pts
Good
All sentences are complete and grammatical. Most words are chosen for their precise meanings. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread, and has very few errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang.
3 pts
Needs Improvement
A few sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Words are not chosen for their precise meanings. Paper has several spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of slang.
0 pts
Unacceptable
Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Paper has many spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of slang.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format

5 pts
Excellent
Contains properly formatted APA requirements, all 5 criteria: a. Length: 1.5 pages; b. 1-inch margins ; c. Double spaced; d.12-point Times New Roman font; e.Title page.
4 pts
Good
Contains mostly properly formatted APA (3 of the 5 criteria): a. Length: 1.5 pages; b. 1-inch margins ; c. Double spaced; d.12-point Times New Roman font; e.Title page.
3 pts
Needs Improvement
Contains mostly properly formatted APA (2 of the 5 criteria): a. Length: 1.5 pages; b. 1-inch margins ; c. Double spaced; d.12-point Times New Roman font; e.Title page.
0 pts
Unacceptable
No APA formatting

5 pts