Jones defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, and his editorial is a heartfelt defense of the lawyers working with detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The piece is ripe with connections to Mockingbird, but it’s challenging because it articulates a complex argument, uses advanced vocabulary, and assumes a relatively large amount of background knowledge.
The Secaucus 9th
graders, however, showed how much they could do in a fifty-minute period!
We
opened the period with a quick video clip from YouTube.
The students, after all, had no idea what Guantanamo Bay is, so they had no way
of thinking about the issue of defending the accused terrorists there. The one-minute
clip about the trial of the driver for Bin Laden (whom they had heard of) gave
them some context. In a quick discussion after the clip, the students asserted
that really guilty people shouldn’t necessarily get a lawyer because this might
allow them to get off. We talked a bit about how you would know whether someone
was really guilty without a trial and that shook their confidence, but we
didn’t yet raise the issue of the importance of a trial for all defendants.
Next, we moved to some vocabulary exercises. Although we suggest you begin the vocabulary work with context clue activities, we started with vocabulary skits in part because we were visiting the class and wanted to build in some immediate fun and goodwill. The students responded well although they struggled, as can be expected, with parts of speech, confusing, for example, adversarial and adversary. (This unit is not available online, but other sample units showing the range of our vocabulary materials from our Using Informational Text to Teach To Kill a Mockingbird can be found at www.usinginformationaltext.com.)
We
did a few more vocabulary exercises, using only those that involved context
clues since we didn’t want to spend the time focusing on dictionary skills and
use. The work was painless and engaging and allowed us to begin to set the
stage for some of the issues in Jones’s piece.
After
about 20 minutes of prep work, we got to the meat of our work: reading through
and discussing Jones. We read together, using the sidebar discussion questions
we had placed alongside the excerpt to chunk the text, probe understanding, and
draw connections with Mockingbird.
The first paragraph of the article references Timothy McVeigh, whom the
students hadn’t heard of, but that same paragraph lays out pretty simply how
brutal his bombing of the Federal Building was. As Jones sketched out his
reasons for defending McVeigh, students were able to deepen their understanding
of the American justice system, appreciating Jones’s willingness to defend a
guilty and unpopular client, noting the similarities to (and difference from)
Atticus and Tom Robinson, and rethinking the importance of a zealous defense
for all accused (and refining their earlier opinions about Bin Laden’s driver).
A particularly great moment was when the students considered how comparatively well
Atticus had been treated by his community given his unpopular defense work.
Jones notes death threats and armed guards at his home; when the students
continue on and read to the end of Mockingbird
and the attack on the children, they will be able to reflect back on their
preliminary assertions.
In
all, the fifty minutes of class was wonderfully successful in getting them to
think about the continued relevance of the issue of a fair defense for all. The
students read difficult text, learned some new words, and thought carefully
about some tough issues. We didn’t get through everything (and perhaps could
have cut the text into a smaller chunk that served the singular purpose of our
one class period), but reading Stephen Jones’s informational text allowed the
students to flex their reading and critical thinking muscles while also delving
deeply into Mockingbird.
