Course outline

Schedule

Essay requirements

Essay # 1

Essay # 2

Tips on the Essay and Commentary

Other Required Course Info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

political science 404/515

 

 

Hobbes' Leviathan:  rights, religion, and political authority

 

Tuesday evenings, 6-9 pm

 

 

email:  Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca

 

 

office hours: by email appointment

 

 

 

 

 

Course Outline 

 

 

This course will consist of seminar discussions based in close readings of the text of Hobbes’ Leviathan, with particular attention to the conceptions of rights, natural right, and liberty in Parts 1 and 2 of the work, and with some attention also to the problems of religion and authority covered in Parts 3 and 4

 

Hobbes’ Leviathan is universally recognized as one of the two or three greatest works of political philosophy ever written.  It has also been widely criticized as authoritarian. In my view, its conception of authority has been misunderstood but (again in my view) this doesn’t matter because the enduring significance of the work does not lie in the authority it advocates but rather in the depth and clarity of its supporting conceptions.  Careful reflection on these conceptions – equality, human rights, morality, the individual in relation to the community, and liberty in relation to political authority – is a unique opportunity to understand these conceptions today, and in relation to current political issues.  These conceptions – and their validity and applicability today – will therefore be the focus of the seminar.  Thus the seminar will have two objectives: (i) to facilitate a critical appreciation of Leviathan as a masterpiece of political philosophy through careful analysis of the text, and (ii) to use the text critically as a basis for thinking creatively about its central conceptions in application to political issues today.

 

The course will be conducted mainly as a seminar. Sessions will usually begin with a 30-40 minute presentation by the instructor but the rest of the session will consist of discussion, and sessions will include the presentation of student papers.  Participants will be expected to contribute actively in these discussions and to prepare for them by careful reading and reflection (with a brief digest) of the assigned material.

 

The seminar is open both to students taking it for academic credit and, with permission, to non-registered auditors.  Auditors will be expected to participate equally in the discussions and to prepared for all sessions they attend through careful reading (with a digest) of the assigned Leviathan chapters.  Additional readings will be required for students seeking academic credit.  

 

Students seeking academic credit will be asked to do three short positional papers and a commentary, plus weekly digests (with two weeks off of their own choosing).  Two of the papers (5 7 pp) will be due during the term, and one of them will be assigned for discussion in the seminar.  The third paper, slightly longer, will be due at the end of the term. In the “commentary” each student will open discussion of one of the seminar papers. Guidance will be given on all these requirements.  Topics will be suggested for all essays, but students will be encouraged to develop their own topics and ideas.

 

In addition, I recommend that for the last class each student write a memo – for their eyes only -- on what they have learned from the seminar. 

 

 

Pre-requisite: Pol S 210 (or equivalent). Students are not expected to have any background in political theory other than this. 

 

Grades*         Essay 1:                         20%

                       Essays 2 & 3:                60%     (30% each)

Seminar contributions: 20%     (including the commentary)

 

Reading digests are required each week before the seminar, with two weeks off on dates of each student’s own choice. These digests will be graded only as satisfactory/ unsatisfactory but they are a strict necessity and marks (up to two letter grades) will be deducted from the final grade for missing digests.

 

Seminar contributions will be evaluated by the quality of oral contributions, including questions.  It is possible to contribute effectively to the quality of a seminar without speaking much, or even at all.  Students who are uncomfortable speaking in public are invited to discuss alternative forms of contribution with me.

 

Texts:

The main reading will be Hobbes’ Leviathan, supplemented by a course reader and on-line secondary readings.  The following have been ordered through SUB Bookstore:

             Hobbes, Leviathan*, ed Curley (Hackett)

             Hobbes’ Leviathan: Supplementary Readings   (the course reader)

             Kishlansky, A Monarchy Transformed

 

*Participants must use a text with numbered paragraphs and the full text of Parts 3 and 4.  This means either the Curley edition (which I have ordered) or Martinich’s edition (Broadview Press) which you are welcome to use instead.

 

Essay Requirements

All essays should be submitted in paper copy (with 1.5” right and bottom margins) on the topics and by the due dates specific in the Schedule of Topics and Readings.

Essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. Essays may be evaluative (assessing Aristotle’s view) or interpretive, but in either case they should be attentive to the text and appropriately balanced, with attention to what might be said against the paper’s position.  Students are encouraged to develop their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by Aristotle, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases) by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only requirement is that the essay must argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... ").

 

Essay Due Dates / Topics

 

essay # 1:         due Thurs, Feb 19th   on any aspect of the text or argument in Part One of Leviathan.

essay # 2:         due Thurs, March 19th  on any aspect of the text or argument in Part Two

essay # 3:         due TBA on any aspect of the text or argument in Leviathan, or on any point of comparison between Rawls and Hobbes.

 

 

Objectives:

 

I hope that students will develop a solid critical appreciation of  these two wonderful works, and that through their reflections students will  hone their skills of critical thinking and effective writing.  But above all I hope that students will develop a sense of actually thinking along with Aristotle and thereby develop a sense of belonging to and participating in the great tradition of political thought that has shaped our modern identity.

 

Policy on Late Assignments:

My hope on requested extensions is to be as accommodating as possible.  My policy on lateness:

(1)    papers to be discussed in the seminar will be distributed in advance, so they can be read before the seminar.  In the first class, participants  will set the deadline for distribution. Papers for discussion in the seminar must be distributed by this deadline. (If you have difficulties with your paper – and who doesn’t?-- , distribute something and revise it later or get someone to sub for you).  Otherwise, papers which miss the deadline will be failed, and will not be discussed.  

(2)    In all other cases late work will not receive comments, but will not otherwise be penalized.. 

 

 

 

Topics and Readings

  This schedule may be revised as the seminar proceeds to accommodate participants’ interests.

The required readings for each session include any seminar paper(s).  All listed readings are required unless otherwise indicated. Easy access to all readings is provided on the web page.

Seminar papers are to be emailed to all participants by midnight on the Sunday before they are scheduled  to be discussed.

 

 

Part 1: The Core Argument

 

Jan 6:        Introduction  (NB:  a full class)  readings will be emailed to participants

  6                             Leviathan, 13 

  2                             Genesis, ch 1 

 

Jan 13:      Philosophical foundation: 

20                             Leviathan: The Introduction, chs. 1-5.  

36                             Skinner, “Hobbes’s Life in Philosophy”, Visions of Politics v 3 (Hobbes and Civil Science)  (library on-line book)

  8                             Selections from Rawls’ A Theory of Justice , sections 1-4, 26 (web readings)

  5                             Wikipedia entry on Rawls’ A Theory of Justice   (web readings)

16                             Wikipedia entry on “The English Civil Wars”    (web readings) 

27                             Kishlansky, Monarchy Transformed, ch 1

112                                            digest: Hobbes

 

Jan 20:          Human nature

26                             Leviathan, 6-9.

12                             Johnson, “Hobbes and The Wolf-Man” (Walton and Johnson, Hobbes’s ‘Science of Natural Justice’)  (printed readings)

50                             Kishlansky, Prologue,  ch 3-4 (skipping ch 2)

88                                            digest: Hobbes + 1-2 sentences on Johnson’s thesis + 1 sentence on each seminar paper

                                                seminar papers:  Andrew Cisna & Dongwoo Kim      

                                                commentaries:    Joe Byram & Dylan Klemen

 

Jan 27:          The natural condition of mankind                                           

18                             Leviathan, 10-13

14                             Macpherson "Introduction" to the Penguin edition. (printed readings)

43                             Kishlansky, ch 5-6

                                 Recommended: De Cive, ch 1   (on line e book)

                                                  digest: Hobbes + 1-2 sentences on Macpherson’s thesis + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                  seminar paper:  Melissa Caouette            commentary:  Darryl de Dios

 

Feb 3:            Split session: (i) the argument for the state of nature; and (ii)  Morality: the right and law of nature  

27                             Leviathan, 14- 16.

26                             Kishlansky, ch 7

12                             Raphael, “Interpretations” (printed readings)

                               Recommended: Carmichael, “The Right of Nature in Leviathan”  (library e-journal)     (14)

  65                                           digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                 seminar paper:  Dylan Hanwell                commentary: Annie Pumphrey

 

Feb 10:          split session on (i) authority [ ch 18-20] and (ii) review of the argument

27                             Leviathan, 17-20

18                             Hampton, “What is the Cause of Conflict in The State of Nature?” (printed readings)

23                             Kishlansky, ch 8                                                    

68                                            digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                 seminar paper:  Corrine Dickau                commentary: Melissa Caouette

 

Feb 17:          Reading week

 

Reminder:     essay # 1 due Thurs Feb 19th  (paper copy: in Tory 10-16 by 4 pm)

 

 

Part 2:  Rights, Liberty, and Authority

 

Feb 24:          liberty and authority                                                                                                     

31                             Leviathan, 21- 25.                                                                     

23                             Susanne Sreedhar,  Defending the Hobbesian Right of Self-Defense    (web readings)

                                 Recommended:  Excerpts from the Supreme Court decision on physician assisted suicide       (web readings)

                                                                 Claire Finkelstein, A Puzzle About Hobbes On Self-Defense    (web readings)

                                                                 Eleanor Curran,  Can Rights Curb the Hobbesian Sovereign    (web readings)

54                                            digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                 seminar paper:  David Rybak                   commentary:  Dongwoo Kim

 

Mar  3:           Law, crime, and punishment 

41                             Leviathan, 26-28.

                                 Recommended:  Carmichael,   “Hobbes on Natural Right in Society: The Leviathan Account”  (library e-journal)      

                                              seminar paper:  Darryl de Dios                   commentary: Corrine Dickau

 

Mar 10:         Statesmanship

48                             Leviathan, 22-25, 29-30   --

                                              digest chs 29-30, with a one paragraph summary of 22-25 + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                               seminar paper:  Annie Pumphrey              commentary: Jackson Sawatzky

 

note: in the original course outline, the readings for the next three sessions were split into two types, to give participants the option of reading Parts 3 and 4 in either abbreviated form or in full.  However the class decided on the abbreviated option so the alternative (reading the full text)  has been removed.

 

Mar 17:         Review of Hobbesian natural right in relation to liberty and authority

  3                            Selections from Locke, Second Treatise, chs 1-2   (web readings)

  3                            Carmichael, “Rights and Human Rights”    (web readings)

17                            Carmichael, “What Kind of “Right” is Hobbes’ Right of Nature?”   (web readings)

30                             Strauss,  “On The Spirit of Hobbes’ Philosophy”  (printed readings)

53                                            digest: Locke, Strauss and Carmichael (“What Kind of Right”)

                                                

Reminder:     essay # 2 due Friday March 20th  (extensions on request to Monday, 3 pm)   

                                                          

Part 3: Liberty, Authority and Religion

 

Mar 24:         Part 3:  God, Salvation, and Philosophy

25                            Leviathan, 12, 31

20                            Leviathan: “Selections from Part 3”  (web readings)

45                                            digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                 seminar paper: Joe Byram                   commentary: David Rybak

 

Mar 31:         Part 4: Religion, Philosophy, and Truth                                        

13                            Leviathan, “Selections from chs 44 and 46” (web readings)

11                            Leviathan,  ch 47

10                            Selections from The Book of Job   (web readings)

  4                            Two articles on the issue of religious accommodation  (distributed)

38                            digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on the seminar paper

                                                 seminar paper:  Jackson Sawatzky                  commentary:  Dylan Hanwell

 

Apr 7:           Hobbes Today:  The topic and readings for this final session may be revised in the light of student interests

13                                Leviathan,   "Review and Conclusion".

                                    Review the readings on Rawls from Wikipedia entry on John Rawls    (web readings)

  3                                Gray, “Can We Agree to Disagree?”    (web readings)

19                                Rhodes, “Reading Rawls and Hearing Hobbes”  ((library e-journal)   

35                                            digest: Hobbes + 1 sentence on each seminar paper

                                                 seminar papers:  Dylan Klemen                       commentaries:    Andrew Cisna

 

Final Essay Due: by email, on or before Wed, April 22nd. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Information On Essays And The Commentary

 

THE COMMENTARY

The commentary should be written and brief; it will be judged on how well it opens up the paper for discussion.

 

begin by summarizing the thesis and argument (briefly)

 

set a generous tone by saying some nice things about the paper;

 

then indicate 1-2 themes/ideas for discussion and

 

start the discussion of the theme(s) in a way that will draw the class into the discussion. There are several ways to do this.  Eg,

 

(i)                 by arguing against the paper’s account in favour of some different approach, or

(ii)               by indicating the importance and some additional things that might be said about the theme(s).

 

 

 

ESSAYS

Requirements:

All essays should be terse, analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in relation to some aspect of the readings. Students are encouraged to develop their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by the author, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases) by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only requirement is that the essay argue a specific and explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... ").

 

This is a specific style of essay writing. Students who are unfamiliar with this style should consult with me for direction before writing their first paper.

 

These are not short research essays, nor are they opinion pieces.  They are position papers: they are expected to have (and state) a position and to support it with reasons and with reference to the text.  Suggestions are included below on how to do this.

Citations are required for all claims about the text and the paper should contain a bibliography, even if just one work.

Format: if you want legible comments, please leave 1.5” free on the right and bottom margins.

 

Suggestions

My sense is that many students have not actually been trained in writing this kind of essay.  That can be a real problem because this is a different kind of essay and it requires that you think about it in its own way.  It’s especially a problem if you are already good at writing other kinds of essays – because if you try to write this essay as if it were a different kind of paper, you simply won’t do well.  This is not meant to frighten you. There is no big deal to writing this kind of essay – if anything, they are easier to write – but they have to be written in the appropriate way.  And this takes practice.

I would specifically urge you to beware of what students have described to me as “the three point formula” (that every essay should have three basic points).  The formula is just suicide in this kind of essay.  Your essay should have just ONE point. If the essay has more than one point, it will not be able to say much about any of them.  Since the value of the paper consists significantly in its analysis, this means that there won’t be much of value in the paper. 

(Students often think that covering a big topic, or making several points – like the so-called “three point essay” – will enable them to get the paper done by saying a little about several things.  But this is a recipe for disaster.  Papers that say a little about several things say … very little about anything.)

So, how do you come up with the (one) point of your paper?

Here again I would urge you not to do this too quickly.  Students sometimes grab a topic and then grab their position (“I’m against him”) and then write the paper.  Boring, boring, boring.  Everything in this kind of paper winds up being pretty obvious, because it doesn’t involve much thought.  And that’s because the paper has been written as if it were a research paper, without the need for research.  In the standard research paper (simplifying), you take the topic, read up as much as you can on it, and then write up what you’ve read (hoping that you can say something interesting about you’re read).  That’s exactly the wrong way to write a position paper. 

To illustrate, consider students in our 499 honours thesis seminar.  The non-political theory students are usually able to say fairly early what they are going to study, and how, and what they hope to do with it.  Whereas the political theory students often don’t know what they are doing until they are almost finished. 

So with a position paper, you should see your position (the one point) as the key to the paper, and as something that deserves as much time and attention as the whole rest of the paper.  This can sound scary, but there is really not much to it – and it’s FUN, dammit.

First, commit to spending as much time on developing your position as on the rest of the paper. 

How do you do this?  Here’s some tips.

Free write and scribble.  Without even thinking of a definite topic, just sit some place you like (I like the Sugarbowl, despite the noise) and scribble away. I think of this as mental throwing up: but something good always comes out of it. 

Be negative.  The best place to start is with things you don’t like – things in the theorist, and things in what others (in the seminar or in readings) have said.  Use this as the point of departure for your scribbling. 

Pay attention to the wayward thoughts – we have passing thoughts in the shower, waiting for the bus, etc – these are often the results of real reflection by the quiet mind.

Discuss and debate with a friend.  Get a discussion buddy from the seminar, buy them beer or coffee for an hour and ask them to disagree with everything you say.  Even better, ask them to listen carefully to what you say with a view to find the one or two things that might be holes in your position. (see below).

Second, don’t be afraid of problems.  Seek them out and turn them to your advantage. 

Is there a problem with your position?  Good – because there should be.  If there are no problems with your position, then it will be obvious … and not worth writing about.

So if you have doubts or reservations about your position – that’s excellent.  You are not expected to argue a position that is obviously true. What you want is a position that – on reflection and consideration of alternatives – has more support than the alternatives.  So your doubts and reservations can be brought into the paper – either as issues for consideration or (in a footnote) as an issue or further analysis.

In fact the real depth in your paper will come out of the paper’s even-handedness: the way it advances your position, not as 100% correct, but instead as a position that, on balance, is better than the others.

As a small example, I mentioned above (under “Be negative”) that there may be things in the theorist that you don’t like.  So at some point in scribbling about this you might consider whether the theorist is really saying this –or, better, whether this is the only way to interpret the passage(s).  Maybe there are other ways to read the passage(s) such that the problem doesn’t arise. 

Third, write, write, write. And then revise.

When we go through this process, we often wind up with a position that’s different from the one we started with, or thought we held.  This process is sometimes called … “thinking” or even.. .. “learning”.

On this account, think of writing the paper 3 times.  (it’s really three “stages”).  The first stage, is the fumbling around, scribbling, talking.  Through this, things (usually a couple of things) will emerge that you care about. This is the beginning of your position.  Now at the second stage, assemble them into a position.  Pay attention to what you want to treat as basic (your thesis) and what instead supports it (reasons).  So assemble them into an argument, pay some attention to what can be said against it, and to the text.  Try then to say all of this as clearly as you can.  Then stage 3: revise and polish. 

Finally, in case it helps, here’s the kind of essay I enjoy reading. It’s an essay that tries to persuade me

that a specific passage or conception is better read one way instead of others or

that a particular interpretation is mistaken (ie less plausible than another), or

that a particular conception in the text is inadequate in some interesting way, or

that a particular criticism of a conception is mistaken.. 

 

ESSAY # 1

As indicated in the outline, essay #1is due in paper form in the General Office on or before 4 pm, Thursday, Feb 19th.  It should be critical positional paper on any topic in part one of Leviathan.  Please see the sections above for more information on essay requirements and suggestions. 

Here I want to amplify that with, first, a comment on the kind of essay I most enjoy reading and, second, some possible topics to get you going if you’re stuck.

In case it helps, here’s the kind of essay I enjoy reading. It’s an essay that tries to persuade me

that a specific passage or conception is better read one way instead of others; or

that a particular interpretation is mistaken (ie less plausible than another), or

that a particular conception in the text is inadequate in some interesting way, or

that a particular criticism of a conception is mistaken.. 

 

Possible topics: these aren’t very good, but they might get you going

(1)   Hobbes is mistaken in his claim that there are three causes of quarrel in human nature.  There are only two, not three.  Everyone today knows that pride is not a problem. 

 

(2)   Hobbes was simply wrong to call the state of nature a state of war.  In reality, most people are reasonable most of the time and so, while there would inevitably be some inconveniences and disagreements in the state of nature, people’s natural reasonableness would prevent these from getting out of control.

 

Essay 2: Topics

.

Here are 3 possible topics (they are just suggestions: you may write on any aspect of the text or argument in Part Two).

To get started, consider these problems:

(i)                 Heinz steals medication that he cannot afford but needs to save his life. He is charged and convicted for theft.  What duties (on the part of the sovereign) and rights (on the part of Heinz) are violated by this?  Does the conviction permit Heinz to kill or overthrow the sovereign?

 

(ii)               Don steals a Porsche that he cannot afford but needs to enable him to ‘live well’ (15.22; also 30.1) because it pumps up his ‘joie de vivre”.  Is there any difference between the cases of Don and Heinz? 

 

If you like either of these questions, choose one and think about how you would answer it BUT DON’T write your essay on it. Instead, write on one of the following more general topics, using (i) or (ii) as an example to illustrate your case.

 

1.                  Does Hobbes’ claim that subjects retain the (core) right of nature undermine or contradict the authority of the sovereign or the stability of the commonwealth?

 

2.                  Hobbes claims that subjects in the commonwealth retain the (core) right of nature (as the “true liberty of the subjects” 21:10 f).  Who decides what is covered by this right, or when it applies: the subject, or the sovereign?

Here’s another question, on a different topic:

 

3.                  Hobbes’ definitions of the ‘right’ and the ‘law’ of nature (14.1 and 14.3) refer expressly to the preservation of a person’s own ‘nature’ and ‘life’.  What does he mean by a person’s ‘nature’ and ‘life’?  Is it mere physical survival?)  Consider with reference to his use of these terms throughout Parts 1 and 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Other Required Course Information

 

Course Prerequisite: Pol S 210 or consent of department

 

Past or Representative Evaluative Course Material

 A sample digest and a sample essay introduction will be distributed in the class

 

Required Notes:

“Policy about course outlines can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar.”

 

Academic Integrity

“The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at http://www.governance.ualberta.ca/en/CodesofConductandResidenceCommunityStandards/CodeofStudentBehaviour.aspx ) and avoid any behaviour that could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.” 

 

Learning and working environment

The Faculty of Arts is committed to ensuring that all students, faculty and staff are able to work and study in an environment that is safe and free from discrimination and harassment. It does not tolerate behaviour that undermines that environment. The department urges anyone who feels that this policy is being violated to:

• Discuss the matter with the person whose behaviour is causing concern; or

• If that discussion is unsatisfactory, or there is concern that direct discussion is inappropriate or threatening, discuss it with the Chair of the Department.

For additional advice or assistance regarding this policy you may contact the student ombudservice: (http://www.ombudservice.ualberta.ca/ ). Information about the University of Alberta Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedures can be found in the GFC Policy Manual, section 44 available at http://gfcpolicymanual.ualberta.ca/ .

 

Plagiarism and Cheating:

All students should consult the “Truth-In-Education” handbook or Website ( http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/ ) regarding the definitions of plagiarism and its consequences when detected.Students involved in language courses and translation courses should be aware that on-line “translation engines” produce very dubious and unreliable “translations.” Students in language courses should be aware that, while seeking the advice of native or expert speakers is often helpful, excessive editorial and creative help in assignments is considered a form of “cheating” that violates the code of student conduct with dire consequences. An instructor or coordinator who is convinced that a student has handed in work that he or she could not possibly reproduce without outside assistance is obliged, out of consideration of fairness to other students, to report the case to the Associate Dean of the Faculty. Before unpleasantness occurs consult http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/TIE/; also discuss this matter with any tutor(s) and with your instructor.

 

Recording of Lectures:

Audio or video recording of lectures, labs, seminars or any other teaching environment by students is allowed only with the prior written consent of the instructor or as a part of an approved accommodation plan. Recorded material is to be used solely for personal study, and is not to be used or distributed for any other purpose without prior written consent from the instructor.

 

Attendance, Absences, and Missed Grade Components:

Regular attendance is essential for optimal performance in any course. In cases of potentially excusable absences due to illness or domestic affliction, notify your instructor by e-mail within two days. Regarding absences that may be excusable and procedures for addressing course components missed as a result, consult sections 23.3(1) and 23.5.6 of the University Calendar. Be aware that unexcused absences will result in partial or total loss of the grade for the “attendance and participation” component(s) of a course, as well as for any assignments that are not handed-in or completed as a result.

 

Policy for Late Assignments:

My policy on extensions is to be as accommodating as possible.  My policy on lateness is different:
(1) Seminar papers which are not distributed in time (by the time agreed upon by the class) will be given a grade of ‘F’ and will not be discussed in the seminar 

(2) Work that is late in all other cases will not receive comments but normally will not otherwise be penalized. I must however reserve the right to assign grade penalties if the lateness creates unfairness for others.

 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------