Number of pages: 4 double spaced Writing Style: APA Number of sources: 3 Unit VIII Case Study Select one of the three NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Reports listed below, and perform a critical analysis of the report. Option 1. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0114-3168. (2012). Ergonomic Evaluation of Surfacing and Finishing Tasks during Eyeglass Manufacturing ? Minnesota. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0114-3168.pdf Option 2. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0008-3148. (2011). Ergonomic and Safety Climate Evaluation at a Brewery ? Colorado. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0008-3148.pdf Option 3. Health hazard evaluation report, HETA 2007-0098-3061. (2008). Ergonomic Evaluation of Frank Hangers at a Turkey Processing Plant - California. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2007-0098-3061.pdf Your case study review must include the following headings per APA guidelines: 1. Introduction ?Provide a description of the selected case. Describe the issues of the case, and state the purpose for the paper. 2. Methods ? State the evaluation criteria used in the NIOSH HHE Report. 3. Results ? Present the findings from the Health hazard evaluation. 4. Recommendations ? Describe the recommendations for improvements. 5. Discussion ? Review relevant literature on the subject. Does research support the recommendations of the case? In addition, are there any other issues of concern? 6. Conclusion ? Present your comments on the case. What did you learn in this review? What more would you like to have seen discussed in the report? In general, your own opinions should only be included in this section. Instructions: Your answer to this assignment must be four to six pages, double spaced, and 12 point font (separate title page and reference page are not included in the page length). The assignment requires that you use your textbook and at least two other references and readings which pertain to the topic in question. text book that I'm using is title ERGONOMIC foundational principles, applications,and techologies by Pamela McCauley Bush, PhD, CPE The main issue that Derek Bok discussed is the extent in which freedom of speech should be tolerated in campus. This was brought about from the student’s display of the confederate flag and swastika. The author goes ahead to say that the displays should not be forbidden but the best option would be to ignore them. This will trigger the person doing so to lay low and stop the protests. The students who feel disturbed should make a move on those displaying the flags and let them know their opinions regarding the issue. His reasoning for this is based on a number of this. First, he says that people have the freedom of speech and expression. This means that the displays are not any legal. The symbols are offensive and it is only ethical for students to stop doing so. However, they are not harmful and ethics are not protected by law. In my opinion, the manner in.

1. Number of pages: 4 double spaced
Writing Style: APA
Number of sources: 3
Unit VIII Case Study
Select one of the three NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation
Reports listed below, and perform a critical analysis of the
report.
Option 1. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0114-
3168. (2012). Ergonomic Evaluation of Surfacing and Finishing
Tasks during Eyeglass Manufacturing ? Minnesota.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0114-3168.pdf
Option 2. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, HETA 2010-0008-
3148. (2011). Ergonomic and Safety Climate Evaluation at a
Brewery ? Colorado.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0008-3148.pdf
Option 3. Health hazard evaluation report, HETA 2007-0098-
3061. (2008).
Ergonomic Evaluation of Frank Hangers at a Turkey Processing
Plant - California.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2007-0098-3061.pdf
Your case study review must include the following headings per
APA guidelines:
1. Introduction ?Provide a description of the selected case.
Describe the issues of the case, and state the purpose for the
paper.
2. Methods ? State the evaluation criteria used in the NIOSH
HHE Report.

2. 3. Results ? Present the findings from the Health hazard
evaluation.
4. Recommendations ? Describe the recommendations for
improvements.
5. Discussion ? Review relevant literature on the subject. Does
research support the recommendations of the case? In addition,
are there any other issues of concern?
6. Conclusion ? Present your comments on the case. What did
you learn in this review? What more would you like to have
seen discussed in the report? In general, your own opinions
should only be included in this section.
Instructions:
Your answer to this assignment must be four to six pages,
double spaced, and 12 point font (separate title page and
reference page are not included in the page length). The
assignment requires that you use your textbook and at least two
other references and readings which pertain to the topic in
question.
text book that I'm using is title ERGONOMIC foundational
principles, applications,and techologies by Pamela McCauley
Bush, PhD, CPE
The main issue that Derek Bok discussed is the extent in which
freedom of speech should be tolerated in campus. This was
brought about from the student’s display of the confederate flag
and swastika. The author goes ahead to say that the displays
should not be forbidden but the best option would be to ignore
them. This will trigger the person doing so to lay low and stop
the protests. The students who feel disturbed should make a
move on those displaying the flags and let them know their
opinions regarding the issue. His reasoning for this is based on
a number of this. First, he says that people have the freedom of
speech and expression. This means that the displays are not any
legal. The symbols are offensive and it is only ethical for

3. students to stop doing so. However, they are not harmful and
ethics are not protected by law. In my opinion, the manner in
which a person is brought up determines the kind of behaviors
and ethics that they posses. For those hanging the symbols, they
could be less concerned with what people think of them as it
might not be a big deal. However, there are rules against
disturbing other students in campuses. Despite the fact that
“offensive” might not be defined by law, it is unethical to
disturb other students in campus. In this case, the campus rules
should apply and those in charge should have the symbols
brought down.
I love the flow of ideas in the discussion. They answered each
one of the questions provided well, showing examples of how
the matter would have been handled in our campus. I agree with
Christiana VanderZel that offensive is not a term that is
projected by the bill of rights, but still the campus law can be
used to sort such an occurrence and ensure that all the rights of
students have been protected. Just like you illustrated, some of
the students might not be doing so to disturb others but there
are those with strings attached to such symbols. The best move
in this case would be to approach the students and get their
reasons well. This would solve the issue in a mutual way other
than putting restrictions.
Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus
By Derek Bok
For several years, universities have been struggling with the
problem of trying to reconcile the rights of free speech with the
desire to avoid racial tension. In recent weeks, such a
controversy has sprung up at Harvard. Two students hung
Confederate flags in public view, upsetting students who equate
the Confederacy with slavery. A third student tried to protest
the flags by displaying a swastika.
These incidents have provoked much discussion and

4. disagreement. Some students have urged that Harvard require
the removal of symbols that offend many members of the
community. Others reply that such symbols are a form of free
speech and should be protected.
Different universities have resolved similar conflicts in
different ways. Some have enacted codes to protect their
communities from forms of speech that are deemed to be
insensitive to the feelings of other groups. Some have refused to
impose such restrictions.
It is important to distinguish between the appropriateness of
such communications and their status under the First
Amendment. The fact that speech is protected under the First
Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or
civil. I am sure that the vast majority of Harvard students
believe that hanging a Confederate flag in public view--or
displaying a swastika in response--is insensitive and unwise
because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display
these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to
many others.
I share this view and regret that the students involved saw
fit to behave in this fashion. Whether or not they merely wished
to manifest their pride in the South--or to demonstrate the
insensitivity of hanging Confederate flags by mounting another
offensive symbol in return--they must have known that they
would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard
for the feelings of others so essential to building and preserving
a strong and harmonious community.
To disapprove of a particular form of communication,
however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it. We are faced
with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to
free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on
mutual respect. Our society has wrestled with this problem for
many years. Interpreting the First Amendment, the Supreme
Court has clearly struck the balance in favor of free speech.
While communities do have the right to regulate speech in
order to uphold aesthetic standards (avoiding defacement of

5. buildings) or to protect the public from disturbing noise, rules
of this kind must be applied across the board and cannot be
enforced selectively to prohibit certain kinds of messages but
not others.
Under the Supreme Court's rulings, as I read them, the
display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within
the protection of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment
and cannot be forbidden simply because it offends the feelings
of many members of the community. These rulings apply to all
agencies of government, including public universities.
Although it is unclear to what extent the First Amendment
is enforceable against private institutions, I have difficulty
understanding why a university such as Harvard should have
less free speech than the surrounding society--or than a public
university.
One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is
that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular
communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to
weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of
communication. If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short
step to prohibiting offensive speakers.
I suspect that no community will become humane and caring
by restricting what its members can say. The worst offenders
will simply find other ways to irritate and insult.
In addition, once we start to declare certain things
"offensive," with all the excitement and attention that will
follow, I fear that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test
the limits, much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous
distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract
more attention to the offensive material than would ever have
occurred otherwise.
Rather than prohibit such communications, with all the
resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them, since students
would then have little reason to create such displays and would
soon abandon them. If this response is not possible--and one can
understand why--the wisest course is to speak with those who

6. perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the
effects of their actions on others.
Appropriate officials and faculty members should take the
lead, as the Harvard House Masters have already done in this
case. In talking with students, they should seek to educate and
persuade, rather than resort to ridicule or intimidation,
recognizing that only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting,
beneficial effect. Through such efforts, I believe that we act in
the manner most consistent with our ideals as an educational
institution and most calculated to help us create a truly
understanding, supportive community.
Source
: The Boston Globe 25 March 1991.
A Student’s Rhetorical Analysis of an Argument
Notice how student Milena Ateyea analyzes Derek Bok’s essay
about freedom of expression by focusing on his use of
emotional, ethical, and logical appeals, by identifying his
fallacies, and by evaluating the credibility of his evidence.
A Curse and a Blessing:
A Critical Review of Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of
Expression at Harvard”
By Milena Ateyea*
In 1991, when Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of
Expression at Harvard” was first published in the Boston Globe,
I had just come to America to escape the oppressive Communist
regime in Bulgaria. Perhaps my background explains why I
support Bok’s argument that we should not put arbitrary limits
on freedom of expression. Bok wrote the essay in response to a
public display of Confederate flags and a swastika at Harvard, a
situation that created a heated controversy among the students.
As Bok notes, universities have struggled to achieve a balance
between maintaining students’ right of free speech and avoiding
racist attacks. When choices must be made, however, Bok

7. argues for preserving freedom of expression.
In order to support his claim and bridge the controversy,
Bok uses a variety of rhetorical strategies. The author first
immerses the reader in the controversy by vividly describing the
incident: two Harvard students had hung Confederate flags in
public view, thereby “upsetting students who equate the
Confederacy with slavery” (51). Another student, protesting the
flags, decided to display an even more offensive symbol—the
swastika. These actions provoked heated discussions among
students. Some students believed that school officials should
remove the offensive symbols, whereas others suggested that
the symbols “are a form of free speech and should be protected”
(51). Bok establishes common ground between the factions: he
regrets the actions of the offenders but does not believe we
should prohibit such actions just because we disagree with
them.
The author earns the reader’s respect because of his
knowledge and through his logical presentation of the issue. In
partial support of his position, Bok refers to U.S. Supreme
Court rulings, which remind us that “the display of swastikas or
Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free-
speech clause of the First Amendment” (52). However, Bok
commits the fallacy of slippery slope when he warns the reader
against censorship, “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a
short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (52). He also
makes a hasty generalization when he claims that “no
community will become humane and caring by restricting what
its members can say” (52). Overall, Bok’s work lacks the kinds
of evidence that statistics, interviews with students, and other
representative examples of controversial conduct could provide.
Thus, his essay initially fails to persuade all readers to make the
leap from this specific situation to his general conclusion.
Throughout, Bok’s personal feelings are implied but not
stated directly. As a lawyer who was president of Harvard for
twenty years, Bok knows how to present his opinions
respectfully without offending the feelings of the students.

8. However, qualifying phrases like “I suspect that” and “Under
the Supreme Court’s rulings, as I read them” could weaken the
effectiveness of his position. Furthermore, Bok’s attempt to be
fair to all seems to dilute the strength of his proposed solution.
He suggests that one should either ignore the sensitive deeds in
the hope that students might change their behavior, or talk to
the offending students to help them comprehend how their
behavior is affecting other students.
Nevertheless, although Bok’s proposed solution to the
controversy does not appear at first reading to be very strong, it
may ultimately be effective. To ignore the students or “to help
them understand the effects of their actions on others” (52) may
seem either too dismissive or too idealistic, but it aligns with
the philosophy of an educational institution. By referring to the
Harvard House Masters, Bok builds his own ethos with the
support of senior faculty members who supervise the academic
and disciplinary welfare of undergraduate students.
Furthermore, Bok calls to his audience through the appeal to
pathos in his final plea “to help us create a truly understanding,
supportive community” (52). The emphasis on tolerance appeals
to the audience’s feelings about the equality of humanity, and
his solution is general enough that it can change with the times
and adapt to community standards.
In writing this essay, Bok faced a challenging task: to write
a short response to a specific situation that represents a very
broad and controversial issue. Some people may find that
freedom of expression is both a curse and a blessing because of
the difficulties it creates. Bok’s argument proves effective due
to his strong logical reference to the First Amendment and his
emphasis on the educational purpose of his institution, thus
appealing to his ethos. As one who has lived under a regime that
permitted very limited, censored expression, I am all too aware
that I could not have written this response in 1991 in Bulgaria.
As a result, I agree with Derek Bok that freedom of expression
is a blessing, in spite of any temporary problems associated
with it.

9. Work Cited
Bok, Derek. “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the
Campus.”
Current Issues
and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo
Bedau. 6th ed. Boston:
Bedford, 2002. 51-52. Rpt. of “Protecting Freedom of
Expression at Harvard.”
Boston Globe 25 May 1991.
Provocative title suggests Ateyea’s mixed response to Bok
Connects article to her own experience to build her own
credibility (ethical appeal)
Provides brief overview of the context and the main idea of
Bok’s argument
Ateyea identifies and concisely states Bok’s central claim
Transition sentence links Bok’s claim to strategies he uses to
support it
Direct quotations show how Bok appeals to emotions through
vivid description
Shows how Bok establishes common ground between the two

10. positions
Emphasizes Bok’s credibility and Ateyea’s respect for him
(ethical appeal)
Links Bok’s credibility to his use of logical appeal by referring
to the First Amendment
Refers to Bok’s use of the fallacies of slippery slope and hasty
generalization
Comments critically on the kinds of evidence Bok’s argument
lacks
Reiterates Bok’s credibility
Identifies qualifying phrases that may weaken the claim
Analyzes weaknesses of Bok’s proposed solution
Raises possibility that Bok’s imperfect solution may work
Provides reasons why Bok’s solution may succeed

11. Summarizes Bok’s task
Ties conclusion back to the title
Clarifies evaluation of Bok’s argument by stating why it is
effective
Concludes by returning to personal experience with censorship
and oppression, which argues for accepting Bok’s solution
Includes a Works Cited entry for the essay
*Adapted and revised, 2012.