The document summarizes an ethical situation arising from the Charlottesville rally in August 2017. It provides background on the rally, describing how white nationalists and alt-right groups protested the removal of a Confederate statue. Violence erupted between protesters and counter-protesters, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The author argues the city of Charlottesville made the correct decision removing the statue, as keeping it up promotes intolerance. They also assert protesters were wrong to claim preserving heritage as their reason for protesting, given the statue's ties to the Civil War and slavery.

1. Charlottesville
Student name
professor
Date
Made abstruse in political perception, the genuineness and
viciousness of the Charlottesville’s rally bares truth to
America’s sustained problem of racial tension. On August 12,
2017, the white nationalists and alt-right groups, in protest of
the city’s decision to remove the statue of a General of
Confederate army in civil war, descended in masses in the
college town of Charlottesville in Virginia. As evident by the
accounts of the event, the oxidized statue of General Robert E.
Lee’s removal, although the basis for protest, was hardly the
source of grievances of the protestors.
The rally termed “Unite the Right” was Jason Kessler’s
brainchild. Around 600,000 strong rally had attendees from 35
states and some making the trip from as far as Alaska. It was a
prelude to deadly violence erupting from clashes between the
protesters and counter protestors. The white nationalists, neo-
nazi, Kux Klux Klan (KKK) and alt-right groups constituted
majority of population protesting the removal of the statue,

2. while people counter protesting championed “Black Lives
Matter” movement and other socio-progressive slogans.
The night before, edginess of racial and social tension in
anticipation of white supremacist’s rally in Charlottesville was
further strained when the protestors executed an undisclosed,
but rumored, torch parade in the campus of University of
Virginia. Enormous number of people carrying lit torches
wasn’t the only reminisce of ultra-right nationalist propaganda
methods from fascist rules; according to eye witnesses,
protesters also evoked slogans such as “You will not replace us”
and “Our blood, our soil”, popular then in the Nazi Germany.
On the day of the rally, as protestors and counter protestors
confronted each other, the vitriol and hate between the groups
were magnified. Eyewitness states, “He spouted racist theories
about the testosterone levels of black women and the difference
in brain sizes between the races. I was unnerved; he truly
believed what he was saying.” (New York Times, 2017)
The violence in the rally caused the death of a 32-year-old
woman and injured about 35 more. The woman was runover and
killed by a protestor, James Alex Fields Jr., when he drove his
vehicle into hordes of counter protestors. The perpetrator has
been charged with second-degree murder. The deadly violence
prompted the Governor to declare state of emergency and use
national guard as police to clear the city.
While this event has been interpreted in different versions to fit
the required narrative in politics, there is no denying that it was
the tangible reminder that racial tensions still run deep in
United States, and, when at breaking point, it culminates into
violence. Regardless of the underlying fundamental causes or
just of the cause, it is evident that the events of Charlottesville
because the white supremacist wanted to organize a protest
taking down of the statue.
The protestors coming to Charlottesville made an ethical choice
as much as they committed physically to the cause. A person
concluding that the statue should not be removed for it is a
symbol of their heritage, is choosing to further their personal

3. agenda. Protesting to keep up a stone statue as a part of heritage
while ignoring the sentiments its provokes in fellow American’s
and the predicament it puts American morals in, by its own high
standard, is a selfish choice to make. Nietzsche’s existential
philosophy would brand this group as weak for being meek.
This group is submissive to information that panders to their
desired agenda. Due to this meekness, they also astray away
from Neitzche’s esteemed virtue of logically differentiating
between facts and opinions. In this case, protestor groups have
unwarranted fear or bias towards minorities based on false and
stereotypical information.
People unimpressed by the removal of the statute, but chose not
to protest the city’s decision is making an ethical choice of
making others happy while suppressing their desires. In
suppressing personal preference with understanding that the
removal of statue is good for the order of the city, is making an
ethical choice of making other deservedly happy while
suppressing own desires. People that arrived at this conclusion
have there thinking process in Stoicism. They have accepted the
reality of the current state. It is a society where tolerance and
diversity is appreciated that narrowness and antisemitism
discouraged. It is also that they have overcome the desires; the
desires to save a part of their heritage. As in stoicism, people in
this group want to fair and justice for all.
In my opinion, the city of Charlottesville made a correct
decision removing the statue and the protestors were in the
wrong to protest its removal. I think the protestors are wrong in
claiming that they want to save it because it is a part of their
heritage. Given that General Lee earned his reputation in
battlefields in a Civil war, a war fought by south for
continuation of slavery, makes him a part of the heritage of all
Americans and their descendants. If heritage is the reason for
the statue to stay up, heritage also demands that it be brought
down.
Moreover, in current society, we promote tolerance. For the
most part, we have gotten over the dogma of religious and racial

4. discriminations. We realize that working together is not only
aesthetically pleasing, but beneficial as well. General Lee, a
symbol of tyrannical blacks’ discrimination before and during
the Civil war, cannot justify staying up when the important
lessons we want our next generations to learn in exactly the
opposite.
As such, the heinous underbelly of United States was apparent
for the world to see. While what happened warranted criticism,
it is also the place where a conversation of race gets such an
important platform. The solution is not here yet, but starting to
know what the problem is half the job done.
Works Cited
Bayer, Edu. "What U.Va. Students Saw in Charlottesville." The
New York Times 13 Aug. 2017: n. pag. Print.
Fortin, Jacey. "The Statue at the Center of Charlottesville’s
Storm." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Aug.
2017. Web.
Hsu, Spencer S. "Charlottesville White Supremacist Rally in
August Drew Attendees from 35 States, Study Finds." The

5. Washington Post. WP Company, 08 Oct. 2017. Web.
Phillips, Kristine. "The Man Who Organized the Charlottesville
Rally Is in Hiding." The Washington Post. WP Company, 22
Aug. 2017. Web.
STOLBERG, SHERYL GAY, and ENTHALBRIAN M. ROS.
"Man Charged After White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville
Ends in Deadly Violence." The New York Times 12 Aug. 2017:
n. pag. Print.
Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Unacceptable
Points 5 4 2 1 0
Understanding
and Evaluating
Ethical
Choices
Student thoroughly discusses at
least two sides of an ethical
choice to be made.
Student thoroughly discusses one
side and partially describes
another side of an ethical choice
to be made.

6. Student partially explains two
sides of an ethical choice to be
made.
Student attempts to explain only
one side of an ethical choice to be
made.
Student is unable to articulate
an ethical choice to be made.
Making and
Justifying
Ethical
Choices
Student states a position on the
issue with more detailed
explanation and/or resons for the
position and addresses objections
to their position.
Student states a poition on the
issue with more detailed
explanation and/or resons for the
position.
Student states a position on the
issue, but only provides limited
explanation and/or reasons for the
position.
Student states a position on the
isse without providing any
reasons for the position.

7. Student does not take a clear
ethical position on the issue.
Consequences Student identifies consequences
and demonstrates a sophisticated
understanding of the scope,
complexity, and/or magnitude of
the consequences.
Student identifies consequences
and demonstrates a moderate
understanding of the scope,
complexity, and/or magnitude of
the consequences.
Student identifies consequences
of the choices, but demonstrates a
limited understanding of the
scope, complexity, and/or
magnitude of the consequences.
Student identifies the obvious
consequences of each choice.
Student does not identify any
consequences of the choices
available.
Philosophical
Engagement
The student makes significant
reference to at least two thinkers
disucessed in the course so far in
their paper.

8. The student makes significant
reference to at least one thinker
and limited reference to another
thinker discussed in the course so
far.
The student makes limited
reference to two thinkers
discussed in the course so far or
significant reference to a single
thinker.
The student makes limited
reference to one thinker discussed
in the course.
The student makes no reference
to any thinkers discussed in the
course so far.
Structure and
Clarity
The paper is clearly structured,
with an introduction, several body
paragraphs, and a clear
conclusion. Paragraph breaks
make sense and use transitions.
All sentences are complete and
grammatical. All words are used
correctly. Paper has been spell-
checked and proofread, and has
no errors.
The paper is clearly structured,
with an introduction, several body

9. paragraphs, and a clear
conclusion. Paragraph breaks
make sense and use transitions.
All sentences are complete and
grammatical. All words are used
correctly. Paper has been spell-
checked and proofread, and has
no errors.
There is a clear introduction and
conclusion, but few paragraph
breaks in the body and little use
of transitions. Sentences are
mostly complete and
grammatical. Most words are
used correctly. Paper has been
spell-checked and proofread, and
has very few minor errors.
The paper lacks either an
introduction or a conclusion, or
the body is a single paragraph.
Several sentences are incomplete
and/or ungrammatical. Many
words are used incorrectly. Paper
has several spelling errors.
There is no structure. The
paper is a single paragraph.
Many sentences are incomplete
and/or ungrammatical. Paper
has many spelling errors. Many
words are used incorrectly.
Reading is difficult due to lack
of proper grammar and syntax.

10. Prof. Norwood's Midterm Paper Rubric
PHIL 1301: Introduction to Philosophy
Prof. Norwood
Midterm Paper Prompt
DUE OCTOBER 15th 2018
Students are required to submit a 750-word (minimum) midterm
paper, which will count for 25% of their final
course grade. The student will present a situation requiring an
ethical choice made by an individual drawn from
the real world (i.e. a news story), consider the possible choices
available and their consequences, take a position
on the situation, and justify that choice. The student must
incorporate significant references to at least two
thinkers discussed in the course so far as part of their
evaluation of the situation requiring an ethical choice. The
paper will be graded according to the attached rubric. The paper
must include the following:
Heading or Cover Page: This must include the student’s name,
course section, and a link to the news
article on which the essay is based.
Summary of Situation Requiring a Choice: The student must
summarize the situation which calls for
an ethical choice, including all relevant details. This includes
identifying the individual person

11. responsible for making the choice (even if that person isn’t
named in the article).
Presentation of Available Choices: The student must present the
possible choices available and the
consequences of those choices.
Decision and Justification: The student must make a choice in
the situation and justify that choice with
well-reasoned arguments. In other words, put yourself in the
place of the individual faced with the
choice. What would you do, and why?
Philosophical Engagement: The student must make substantial
references to at least two thinkers we
have discussed in the course so far. These references can be
used in any part of the paper and should
demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the philosophers and
ideas encountered in this course.
Papers must be submitted through eCampus. Any student who
turns in plagiarized work for the midterm
paper will receive a failing grade for the course.
Students will receive 3 points of extra credit if they have the
writing lab look over their paper prior to the
due date and provide Prof. Norwood with proof of that meeting.