The Hunting Ground – GE Area 3 Outcomes Requirement

Link of the movie; https://csufresno.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=01947d79-5e7a-417f-aa3b-ac120023f07f

Warning: Adult content

An exposé of rape crimes on U.S. college campuses, their institutional cover-ups, and the devastating toll they take on students and their families.

Assignment Instructions

Watch the film, The Hunting Ground (Links to an external site.) (1 hr 44 min). Closed Caption video link here (Links to an external site.)Develop a typed-written (4 paragraphs) response addressing the following questions:

  1. Reflect on the film’s provocative title, The Hunting Ground. Does the title accurately capture the main themes of the film? Do you agree that the campuses depicted in the film served as hunting grounds for perpetrators and endangered victims? Can you think of alternative titles?
  2. Prior to The Hunting Ground, Dick Kirby and Amy Ziering produced The Invisible War, an Oscar-nominated film about sexual assault in the US military. In a recent interview, Ziering stated, “We thought that schools would be more transparent (than the military), but we found just the opposite.” Why, in your opinion, do colleges fail to hold perpetrators of sexual assault accountable and in some cases cover up their crimes?
  3. Several survivors interviewed in the film offer examples of “victim blaming”: suggestions from administrators, campus police, or law enforcement that they were responsible for their assaults. Why is victim blaming a problem? How does it contribute to a feeling of betrayal among student survivors of sexual violence? What is an appropriate way to respond to a student who reports sexual violence?
  4. Dr. Caroline Heldman, an Occidental College faculty member interviewed for the film, says that what exacerbates the trauma of survivors is that they are often trapped on campus with the perpetrator. As a result, no place on campus feels safe. What can be done to address this problem? What would it take for an academic institution to transform itself from being a hunting ground to providing a safe and supportive environment for all its students?

Include citations of required readings and any other sources you use that are NOT your intellectual property at the end of your paper or video. Review item # 57 AND select Files on the left-hand menu to access the Course Resources then the ASA Style folder for citation resources on formatting requirements, guidelines, and examples. 

GE Area 3 Outcomes Rubric

GE Area 3 Outcomes Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRecognize Argument5.0 PtsAdvancedClearly identifies thesis, if appropriate. Identifies main points, and key conclusion(s) that is/are part of a specific argument.4.0 PtsProficientClearly identifies thesis, if appropriate. Identifies main points, and some conclusion(s) that is/are part of a specific argument.3.5 PtsDevelopingDoes not clearly identify thesis if appropriate. Does not identify main points or does not identify any conclusion(s) that is/are part of a specific argument.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementAssignment is incomplete or inaccurate.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalyze Argument5.0 PtsAdvancedThe different elements of the argument are clearly identified and discussed in detail.4.0 PtsProficientThe different elements of the argument are clearly identified3.5 PtsDevelopingThe different elements of the argument are NOT clearly identified.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementAssignment is incomplete or does not identify any specific elements of the argument accurately.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvaluate Argument5.0 PtsAdvancedThe strengths and weaknesses of the argument are identified and discussed and the effectiveness of the argument is mentioned or discussed.4.0 PtsProficientThe strengths and weaknesses of the argument are identified and discussed.3.5 PtsDevelopingThe strengths and weaknesses of the argument are neither not clearly and accurately identified or they are not discussed at all.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementThe assignment is incomplete or the statements or examples are inaccurate.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReasoning DistinctionDistinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning.5.0 PtsAdvancedAccurately identifies reasoning as inductive or deductive. Detailed explanation of why argument(s) is/are an example of either inductive or deductive reasoning.4.0 PtsProficientAccurately indicates whether argument is inductive or deductive. Explains clearly enough to be understood why argument(s) is/are inductive or deductive reasoning.3.5 PtsDevelopingInaccurately indicates that argument is inductive or deductive reasoning OR the explanation of why the argument(s) is/are an inductive or deductive argument is not entirely clear or is inaccurate.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementInaccurate or completely unclear indication of whether reasoning is inductive or deductive AND unclear or inaccurate explanation of why.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeFallacy IdentificationIdentify common fallacies of reasoning.5.0 PtsAdvancedStudent has clearly identified nearly all examples of fallacies of reasoning in the multiple choice exam, essay, or other assignment and clearly understands the specific flaws in the argument(s).4.0 PtsProficientStudent has clearly identified many of the fallacies of reasoning in the multiple choice exam, essay, or other assignment and clearly understands most of the specific flaws in the argument(s).3.5 PtsDevelopingStudent has clearly identified some of the fallacies of reasoning in the multiple choice exam, essay, or other assignment, and clearly understands at least a few specific flaws in the argument(s).3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementAssignment is incomplete or student has NOT clearly identified the fallacies of reasoning in the multiple choice exam, essay, or other assignment.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalysis of EvidenceAnalysis of evidence linked to specific claims.5.0 PtsAdvancedStudent clearly, and in detail, indicates for nearly all major evidence whether or not it is directly related to the specific claim it is supposed to support.4.0 PtsProficientStudent clearly indicates for some major evidence whether or not it is directly related to the specific claim it is supposed to support.3.5 PtsDevelopingStudent does not indicate, for major evidence, whether or not it is directly related to the specific claim it is supposed to support.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementAssignment is incomplete or does not accurately indicate if major evidence is directly related to the claim it is supposed to support.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvaluation of EvidenceEvaluate evidence linked to specific claims.5.0 PtsAdvancedStudent clearly indicates for nearly all major evidence whether or not it is reliable and provides complex or detailed reasons explaining why the evidence is reliable.4.0 PtsProficientStudent clearly indicates for some major evidence if it is reliable and discusses in some detail why it is reliable.3.5 PtsDevelopingStudent does not clearly indicate for major evidence whether or not is reliable and there is either an inaccurate or incomplete discussion of why evidence is reliable.3.0 PtsNeeds ImprovementAssignment is incomplete or does not accurately indicate if major evidence is reliable and there is no attempt to discuss why evidence is reliable.0.0 PtsNo MarksStudent does not meet minimum assignment requirements.5.0 pts
Total points: 35.0