Key markers of teaching for social justice
Describe Agrawal et al.’s 3 key markers of teaching for social justice. How is the way they define teaching for social justice similar to or different from how other authors, whose work we have read, define it (e.g., Hackman in HW 5, Banks in HW 3, etc.)?
What were the main findings from the Agrawal et. al. article? In what ways are your views challenged or similar to the article?
What barriers do you think exist to engaging in teaching for social justice as defined by Agrawal et. al.? What might be some solutions or approaches to overcoming those barriers?
Share possible idea(s) and resources you are thinking about for your final Teaching for Social Justice Lesson Plan. Provide a brief description of a possible lesson including content/topic, grade level, and how you think it would align with teaching for social justice.
g Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.